The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Executive Committee Business

Harbours (Grants and Loans Limit) Bill: Royal Assent

Patsy McGlone: I inform the Assembly that the Harbours (Grants and Loans Limit) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Harbours (Grants and Loans Limit) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 became law on 1 March 2021. It is chapter 1.

Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill: Royal Assent

Patsy McGlone: I inform the Assembly that the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill has received Royal Assent. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 became law on 1 March. It is chapter 2.
Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.

House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung.

Upon 10 Members being present —

Assembly Business

Assembly Commission Budget 2021-22

John Blair: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the position of the Audit Committee on its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22, as set out in its letter to the Minister of Finance on 14 December 2020 and laid before the Assembly on 22 February 2021; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22.

Patsy McGlone: The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one hour for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

John Blair: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In proposing this motion, the Assembly Commission wishes to highlight the methodology used to set its budget. The Commission notes that it involves the development of a draft budget by the Commission, scrutiny of that draft budget by the Audit Committee and input from the Department of Finance to help to inform the Committee's scrutiny. The motion and subsequent vote enable the Assembly to determine the resource that the Commission needs to enable the Assembly to carry out its legislative functions. The Audit Committee's consideration of the draft budget resulted in the letter, referred to in the motion, that was sent from that Committee to the Minister of Finance. I record the Commission's indebtedness to the Committee for the diligent manner in which it carried out its important scrutiny.
I turn to the figures in the Commission's draft budget for 2021-22. The total presented for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) is £49·333 million. That figure is split between non-ring-fenced resource DEL of £45·833 million and £3·5 million for ring-fenced resource DEL. There is also a budget proposal of £1·684 million for capital expenditure.
The first category in the Commission's budget is income. Next year, the Commission expects to receive income of £630,000. Just over £580,000 of that total relates to the recovery of the cost of ministerial salaries from Departments. The remaining amount is largely made up of the recoupment of the cost of salaries for the very small number of staff who are expected to be seconded to other public-sector entities for part of the year.
The second category covers salaries and expenses paid to Members. This category of expenditure is made up of a number of distinct subcategories. They include Members' salaries; constituency office running costs, including Members' support staff costs; Members' travel costs; and other costs associated with Members. The level of salary paid to Members, Ministers, Committee Chairs and members of the Assembly Commission was set by the Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP), and the total cost forecast is £6·676 million. Members should note that the level of consumer price index (CPI) inflation was less than 1% at September 2020, meaning that no increase in Members' salaries is provided for in the 2021-22 financial year.
The amounts that Members can recover to meet the cost of running a constituency office include the cost of Member support staff, office rent and rates, office utilities and other office running costs. These were set by the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2020, published by the Commission in August last year, and this subcategory is expected to total £10·461 million. The penultimate subcategory covers payments to Members in respect of the travel allowance set out in the determination. These are forecast to be £294,000 in 2021-22. The final subcategory covers what are referred to as "other costs". These include winding-up expenses, should a Member choose to resign her or his seat in the Assembly, and any ill-health retirements that might occur. These costs are estimated at £75,000 for the incoming year.
The third major category in the Commission's budget covers the salary payments for secretariat staff and the administrative costs that are incurred to deliver the full range of services needed by the Assembly. The first of these, secretariat staff salary costs, is forecast to be £22·026 million for the next year. This reflects similar secretariat staffing levels to those agreed by the Assembly for the current year. Members should note that the Commission has launched a Youth Assembly, and appropriate staff and other resources are already in place to deliver this exciting initiative next year. This category of expenditure also includes the Commission's administration costs, and these are forecast to be £6·131 million in 2021-22, which is the same as the amount agreed by the Assembly for the current year. Administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure items, including Committee expenses; building rates; utility costs, including electricity and gas; repairs and maintenance costs, third-party support for the business-critical IT systems that we use; and the cost of recurring contracts for things like broadcasting, catering and research subscriptions. They also include Member development costs and the cost of drafting private Members' Bills.
The next category is payments to parties under the financial assistance for political parties scheme 2016, or FAPP, as it is universally known. Those costs are forecast to be £800,000 next year, which is £70,000 higher than the current year. Members will be aware of the work that is being undertaken by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to review the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition to potentially include additional funding for parties that form the Opposition. Without prejudice to that review, the Commission is also considering the amounts payable under the FAPP scheme for 2021-22.
The penultimate category is slightly more technical. It covers depreciation and impairment charges. For the next year, depreciation charges are forecast to be £3·5 million. That is mostly made up of the depreciation charge on the value of Parliament Buildings. We also have depreciation charges for such things as PCs and printers, but they are very small compared with the depreciation charge for Parliament Buildings. That makes up the total of £49·333 million for resource DEL expenditure for next year.
The Commission anticipates that it will need to make capital investments of £1·684 million in 2021-22. In its letter to the Finance Minister, the Audit Committee noted that the Commission's capital budget includes items that are badly needed to rectify underinvestment in the preceding three years. The capital plan for 2021-22 includes investment in the broadcasting infrastructure in the Building, Building security measures and a range of IT-enabled projects that are intended to ensure that our information and communication technology infrastructure is up to date and robust.
On behalf of the Commission, I take this opportunity to record my sincere thanks to the Assembly secretariat staff for the considerable effort that they have made to facilitate the work of the Assembly in a safe but effective manner throughout what has been an extremely challenging year. The Commission also thanks everyone who counts Parliament Buildings as their place of work. That includes Members, Members' staff, staff employed by political parties, and our contractors and suppliers. Their professionalism, adherence to the measures that the Commission has put in place and forbearance in the face of challenging circumstances has meant that we have enjoyed a safe and secure working environment in the Building. We thank them.
I commend the Commission's budget proposals for 2021-22 to the House.

Patsy McGlone: I call Daniel McCrossan. He has up to five minutes in which to speak.

Daniel McCrossan: Normally, the Audit Committee would produce a report outlining its deliberations on the draft budget for the Assembly Commission, Audit Office and the Public Services Ombudsman, but, because of the tight time frame for the 2021-22 Budget process, a letter was sent to the Minister of Finance instead. That is referenced in the motion. Before I give detail on the Committee's scrutiny of the Commission's budget, I will outline the background of the Committee's approach. The Committee followed the approach of the previous Audit Committee. To reflect the constitutional independence of the Assembly from the Executive, a methodology was introduced in 2016, similar to that adopted by the Audit Committee for agreeing the annual Estimates for the Audit Office and the Public Services Ombudsman. The intention is that that additional Committee function will be codified before the end of the mandate.
The Committee began its scrutiny of the Commission's indicative budget in October 2020 on the understanding that an in-depth review of every category of expenditure would be carried out to reach the final figures. The indicative budget that was presented for 2021-22 was largely the same as the original budget for 2020-21. That was primarily based on the hope that many of the plans that were in place for 2020-21, such as outreach and engagement activities, would be progressed in 2021-22. However, at the time, members noted that the figures would need to be amended to take account of the expenditure that could arise from the outworkings of the Assembly Members' salary and expenses determination, which the Commission published in the summer. As Members will be aware, the Commission has a legal requirement to meet all costs associated with Members, including salaries, allowances, expenses, Members' staffing costs and pension contributions. Those budget elements are determination-driven and are not under the control of the Commission.
During the October evidence session with Commission officials, members focused mainly on the indicative capital budget for 2021-22. Issues discussed included electronic access control to the Building, the security management system, the audio system in the Chamber, updates to the telephone and television systems in Parliament Buildings and the potential financial impact of roof repairs to Parliament Buildings. The Commission's review of expenditure was subsequently carried out, and it resulted in an increased expenditure of close to half a million pounds in resource DEL and nearly £300,000 in capital DEL.
Officials attended a Committee meeting in December to update members on the scope of the review and the revised figures. The increase in resource DEL was predicted mainly due to MLA constituency costs and party allowances increasing, and it also included an increase for secretariat staff salaries to reflect pay progression and recruitment. In the light of the Chancellor's pay freeze announcement as part of the spending review, it does not include an additional pay uplift for staff salaries.
The increase in capital DEL was, in the main, down to broadcasting infrastructure improvements, remote working solutions and the replacement of TV systems in the Building. Members heard that most of the capital works planned are needed to address underinvestment in previous years in the fabric of the Building and viewed them as being necessary in order to face the challenge of a fully functioning Assembly, especially in difficult times such as these. Indeed, the Committee pressed the Commission to ensure that works are progressed as quickly as possible. The Committee, however, received correspondence from the Minister of Finance asking that the Assembly Commission engage with Enterprise Shared Services (ESS) to determine whether there is a more cost-effective solution to the capital requirements. That matter has not been fully dealt with but is something to which Committee will return.
The Committee sought further information from the Commission on the cost of the remedial work required for the roof of Parliament Buildings but was advised that the matter was still under investigation. No further information could therefore be provided at that stage. There is no cost given for the remedial work in the budget, but, given the potential impact of any repairs on the Commission's future budget and the Committee's role in looking at value for money, details of the cost, when known, have been requested.
In coming to its conclusion, the Committee was mindful of the wider public expenditure position, and, as set out in its letter to the Finance Minister, it agreed that the Executive's draft Budget document should make provision for the Assembly Commission to have a resource DEL budget of £49·333 million and a capital DEL budget of £1·684 million, with the resource DEL broken down into £45·833 million of non-ring-fenced DEL and £3·5 million of ring-fenced DEL.

Jim Allister: As MLAs, we should always be mindful of the very privileged position in which the Assembly Commission operates. Uniquely within these institutions, it has that most favoured of positions, in that the money that it asks for, the Department must provide. That therefore intensifies the need to ensure that there is neither squander nor abuse of that money.
The upcoming Commission budget coincides, of course, with the year of the centenary of Northern Ireland. Given the status of the Commission as the oversight body for how this place functions and presents itself, it is therefore a matter of grave disappointment to me that there is not a single line in the budget that is specific to celebrating that centenary. That is very remiss. There are on those on the Commission who talk loudly about respect, but, when it comes to those who wish to celebrate the centenary, seeking some respect, they get from that party, namely Sinn Féin, the exercising of a veto in order to deliver disrespect. That is quite shameful. We are almost at the end of the first quarter of this year of centenary, yet have we heard a squeak from the Commission about celebrating the centenary? No. Rather, we have had foot-dragging on propositions and a determination, it would seem, by some to make sure that it is disrespect rather than respect that attends the centenary. That is a measure of some on the Commission and of the folly of the arrangement of what they call consensus but which, when it comes to the conduct of these things, really means veto.
We also see it when it comes to the question of the illumination of the Building. Next Thursday is the annual international day of remembrance of the innocent victims of terrorism. One of the victims' groups — the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) — and I have, again, made a request for the illumination of this Building on 11 March to mark that significant day. Last year, the Commission snubbed innocent victims; it refused illumination. This year, it is dragging its feet; it has not even, almost within a week of the occasion, issued a decision. That is wholly shameful and disrespectful. It is another illustration of the abuse of veto in the Commission. I call on the Commission, given its disgraceful conduct last year, to at least not compound it, but show some respect to a most deserving cohort of people: innocent victims of terrorism.

Patsy McGlone: I remind the Member that we are discussing the budgetary aspects of the Commission.

Jim Allister: Yes, and we are discussing in that, therefore, the work of the Commission. It is important that that is borne in mind.
The Commission brought a Bill to the House some time ago, but we have heard nothing about the Second Reading of that Bill. When is that coming to the House? We are entitled to know.

Gerry Carroll: I will not speak for long. The main discussion on the Budget will be later, so I will speak in detail to that. I raise one point in relation to the Assembly Commission budget. People have struggled left, right and centre in the pandemic in the past year. Workers have lost their jobs. Many have lost wages through being furloughed. Small businesses have fallen through the cracks; many are still unable to get any support or financial assistance. It is clear that the politicians in the Executive could not find money to support people in that situation, yet they can increase money for office staff and expenses.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that he agrees that there is a long outstanding issue of pay and benefits for Assembly staff. Members' staff have been treated very badly. Have the Member's staff taken up the changes to the determination? If so, the Member could be accused of having double standards.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said —.

Patsy McGlone: The Member has an extra minute if he requires it.

Gerry Carroll: As I said last year to the Member, one of the first things that the Assembly did when it reconvened was look after its staff and offices by increasing expenses.

Dolores Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll: No, I will not give way; you will have plenty of time to speak.
History will not be kind to those who argued for and will pass a Budget today that will tighten the belts of workers, people on benefits and public services, but at the same time looking after their own offices and staff. This motion will allow for that while many workers are struggling and have lost wages. It is a shame that people cannot see the double standards at play today and in the past year. I put on record my opposition to this part of the budget. However, as with many cases in the House, I will probably be unable to force a Division because of the rules in place.

Patsy McGlone: Mr John O'Dowd is winding on the motion. The Member has up to 10 minutes.

John O'Dowd: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As my colleague John Blair noted in his introductory remarks, the Assembly Commission is mindful of the fact that the Assembly should debate the Commission's budget in plenary. That is important because the resources that are made available to the Commission will be used to provide services to the Assembly and all its Members.
In the current circumstances, when we are likely to face significant financial pressures and, in fact, in all circumstances, the Commission is mindful that when it provides the services that are required by the Assembly, it does so in a way that delivers value for money. The point is regularly made that the Commission must provide the Assembly and every Member who is elected to the House with all the services that are required to carry out the Assembly's legislative scrutiny and representative functions. That will remain the Commission's overarching objective as we approach the end of the Assembly mandate.
The Commission considers the Budget for next year as being sufficient without being excessive. It does not include unnecessary sums that cannot be justified, nor is it threadbare to the extent that the services required by Members will not be able to be provided. It strikes a balance for the final year of the mandate, with the anticipation of a heavy legislative programme in circumstances that are likely to remain challenging for everyone in Parliament Buildings. This Budget should enable the Commission to meet the necessary costs that arise in-year in relation to staff costs, Building running costs, the costs of the delivery of effective constituency services for our community, and the ongoing cost of investing in infrastructure to ensure that it continues to meet Assembly needs.
I will respond now to some of the issues raised by Members. Of course, the Budget is scrutinised by the Audit Committee, of which I understand that Mr Allister is a member. The Budget will be brought before the House today, and Members will have an opportunity to vote for or against it. The Commission has adopted the same principles for the upcoming centenary as we have for the decade of centenaries. Indeed, we agreed a paper on it quite recently. The same principles have been applied to all the significant centenaries over the last period.
Mr Carroll is a classic example of, "Do as I say, not as I do". The Commission has provided proper terms and conditions and wages to workers. I do not delineate between workers. If someone works for an Assembly Member, that should not mean that they have fewer rights and entitlements and a lower salary than someone else. You chose to vote against that legislation. In fact — dare I say it? — you followed the path of wee Jim Allister instead of big Jim Larkin. You talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk. When it comes to improving workers' rights, the Assembly Commission has walked the walk.

Gerry Carroll: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: Go ahead.

Gerry Carroll: The Member talks about supporting workers' rights and, indeed, Jim Larkin is a good reference point. Will the Member and his party support my trade union freedom Bill, which aims to increase the rights of workers across society in the North?

John O'Dowd: The principle of the Bill sounds fine, but I am speaking as a member of the Commission. The party will engage with you on your Bill.

Dolores Kelly: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: I will.

Dolores Kelly: Is the Member not astonished that Mr Carroll did not take the opportunity to affirm his support for his own constituency staff, who are highly skilled and work on complex issues and, yet, because of the previous determination, were left on below-standard wages and with no rights or entitlement to pay if they were taken ill?

John O'Dowd: I am disappointed, not astounded. Rhetoric is cheap; action costs. The Commission, across all its political hues, has decided that it will pay staff properly. Indeed, in relation even to Assembly —

Steve Aiken: Thanks very much indeed for giving way. I must declare that I am a member of Unite. My staff, who are union members, have, in the past, expressed their concerns about the fact that they lack support. Speaking on behalf of my staff and other trade union members, I can say that they, too, are delighted that our staff are being paid what they are worth.

John O'Dowd: Indeed.
Moving on, I do not believe that lighting is an issue for Budget deliberations. I am sure that the Member will be able to submit questions or other communications on lighting policy to the Commission.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: I will.

Jim Allister: The Member must surely appreciate the urgency of this matter, given that we are just over a week away from the event. The Commission has had this request for months. Surely it would be compassionate to those who represent innocent victims to give a positive response to that request at this stage.
The Member says, "Rhetoric is cheap". Indeed it is. Let us have some action.

John O'Dowd: I understand that Commission members received communication from the secretariat about a lighting paper and the request that the Member refers to. It is now up to Commission members to respond. I am reluctant to go into detail on it because I do not believe that it is necessarily a budgetary matter.
In conclusion, Commission members considered the requirements for the 2021-22 budget. While recognising that a significant element of its budget is non-discretionary, the prevailing circumstances were also considered. The Commission is grateful to the Audit Committee for its work on scrutinising and affirming the 2021-22 budget total of £49·333 million for resource DEL and £1·684 million for capital DEL. I commend those amounts to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the position of the Audit Committee on its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22, as set out in its letter to the Minister of Finance on 14 December 2020 and laid before the Assembly on 22 February 2021; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22.

Patsy McGlone: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Standing Order 42(5): Suspension

Roy Beggs: Members will recall that the Speaker announced a ruling in September 2020 that requires a Minister who is seeking to shorten the passage of a Bill, which is separate to the accelerated passage procedure for Committee considerations, to provide an explanatory statement when introducing the Bill. The Speaker wishes to advise Members that he received correspondence from the Minister that explains why he considers that a short passage for this Bill is necessary, and yesterday he shared that correspondence with all Members.

Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That Standing Order 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget Bill 2021.

Roy Beggs: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate.

Conor Murphy: As I explained to the Assembly when we debated the Supply resolution, we face an unprecedented public expenditure situation as a result of the COVID-19 emergency. If the Bill is not passed, there is a very real risk that Departments could run out of cash in the very near future. That would be unthinkable at any time, but it is particularly so in the current situation.
Standing Order 42(5) requires:
"No Bill shall pass all its required stages in the Assembly in less than ten days."
That ensures that the Assembly has time to properly consider and debate the issues. However, the scale, timing and pace of the COVID crisis are such that the usual legislative process is insufficiently agile to provide an adequate response. Therefore, I am taking what, I know, is a very unusual step in asking the Assembly to suspend the Standing Order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time.
While it is unusual, a suspension of this Standing Order was also required in May 2020 to allow the passage of the further Vote on Account for the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Members should be aware that it is not the end of the story when the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly as there are a number of steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured, hence, the urgency involved.

Matthew O'Toole: In speaking briefly on the suspension of the Standing Order, it is my desire — I am sure that the Chair will also put this on the record — simply to point out that the Committee had a serious discussion about the suspension of Standing Orders this year. It is true that the Committee felt that it had not had as much discussion about a range of budgetary matters as it might otherwise have had. However, we are in a very particular year. As the Minister said, this is the most extraordinary year with regard to public spending allocations. It would have been unthinkable to have provided even the faintest shadow of doubt about agreeing a Budget Bill. That it why the Committee made the decision that it did. However, during the Budget Bill debate that is to follow, I am sure that Committee members will have a longer opportunity to put on the record some of our concerns and broader thoughts around Budget making.

Gerry Carroll: I put on record my opposition to the suspension of this Standing Order. Once again, I am probably unlikely to divide the House. This is probably the second of many times today that I will say this, but we need as much debate and scrutiny time as possible for everything in the House, including the Budget Bill. We need maximum time for scrutiny, for questions to be asked and answered and for new ideas to be looked at, developed and worked into it. Therefore, I put on record my opposition to this change to Standing Orders.

Conor Murphy: I appreciate the support of the Committee on the issue. I also appreciate the Committee's strong desire for the maximum amount of available scrutiny. I respect Mr Carroll's point, as I understand that Members would wish to have more time to look through these matters. We are, as I said, in extraordinary circumstances, and it is not the way in which we would normally want to do business. The urgency with which the Bill needs to proceed through the Assembly is driven by the critical need to secure access to cash for Departments to continue to deliver services in the face of the COVID-19 emergency.
I am a long-standing Member and have been a member of many Assembly Committees. I fully understand the desire to ensure that proper processes facilitate the ability to scrutinise, question, debate and discuss important matters. However, we are, as I said, in exceptional circumstances that require exceptional steps. Therefore, I ask Members to agree to the suspension of Standing Order 42(5).

Roy Beggs: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Order 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget Bill 2021.

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 17/17-22] be agreed.

Roy Beggs: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate.

Conor Murphy: Today's Second Stage debate follows yesterday's approval by the Assembly of the Supply resolutions for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account.
As Members will, undoubtedly, be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary in order to ensure Royal Assent by the end of March. If that is not received in time, Departments and other public bodies may not be able to access cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services not just in the closing weeks of the current financial year but in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year. That would, undoubtedly, affect the delivery of essential public services and our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Bill can proceed under accelerated passage.
We all recognise that the situation this year has been extremely challenging, requiring increased levels of flexibility to ensure that we give our citizens, hospitals, schools and businesses the best chance of recovery. While the Executive have had to work outside the normal process this year, the Finance Committee and Assembly still had the opportunity to scrutinise the financial position reflected in the Bill. The 2020-21 Budget was debated in the House, and statements were made to the Assembly on each change to the financial position. Members had the opportunity to debate the further Vote on Account in May and the Main Estimates in October. There has also been significant engagement with the Finance Committee throughout the 2020-21 financial year. I appreciate that this year has been extraordinary in terms of the volume and pace of allocations made, but I have been open with the Committee about the challenges faced and the decisions that the Executive and I have taken through the year. The work of the Committee in that respect is vital, and its importance should not be underestimated.
Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate:
"shall be confined to the general principles of the Bill."
I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the cash and use of resources on services on the basis of the Executive's final spending plans for the 2020-21 year and for Departments and other public bodies as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2020-21. The Bill also provides authorisation for the cash and use of resources in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year as a Vote on Account, pending the Assembly's consideration of the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June.
Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. The 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account were laid in the Assembly on 23 February.
The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £22,220,328,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £25,124,542,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2021; that is this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Those amounts supersede the amounts that were previously authorised by the Assembly through the Main Estimates.
For the current financial year, the Bill also sets a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources, which are current and capital receipts totalling £2,829,984,000. The accruing resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedule 2. Therefore, the total resources and accruing resources now provided in the Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2020-21 to just under £28 billion. In addition, the Bill will authorise the issue of a further £10,081,611,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £11,194,733,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2022. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4.
As I have explained, the Vote on Account does not constitute the setting of a Budget for 2021-22 but merely allows Departments to continue to operate and to provide services in the early months of that year, pending the consideration of the Executive's Budget for that year through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June.
One point that I want to draw to the House's attention is that, while the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of statutory powers that are provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some, usually small, functions that may, from time to time, be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act. When a Department makes use of the sole authority of the Budget Act, it will highlight that fact by placing a note in a black box symbol in the corresponding Estimate. The Estimates document now also sets out why the sole authority is being relied on. Additional information has also been provided to the Finance Committee, and, at its request, a supplementary page to the Estimates document has been provided to Members.
Because the Main Estimates for 2021-22 will not be available until June, I want to make the Assembly aware that, until Royal Assent is received for the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Loss of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit) Bill and until the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Extension) Regulations (NI) 2021 have been approved by a resolution of the Assembly, the Department for Communities seeks approval to incur spend under the sole authority of this Budget Bill at an estimated cost of up to £32 million.
Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £5,040,806,000, which is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 4 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I stress to the House that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund, nor does it convey any additional spending power. However, it enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime and to ensure minimum drawdown of the block grant on a daily basis, which is important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.
The numbers in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. The reality is that this legislation is required for every public service, whether it is for a schoolteacher or a nurse, for the building of a new road or for the training required for gaining a new job. All public services need the legislation to operate in each financial year. Whilst it may appear dry and seemingly detached from day-to-day life, it is, in fact, crucial legislation that underpins our public services.
On that note, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will conclude. I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Minister for his remarks. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I make my remarks on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill on behalf of the Committee for Finance, I would like to briefly comment on the question of accelerated passage.
The Committee for Finance is in a unique position in respect of the requirement for it to provide confirmation to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the public expenditure proposals covered by the Budget Bill. When we were considering the matter, it was evident that the majority of Committee members did not feel that they had been appropriately consulted in respect of the relevant public expenditure proposals. Why, then, did I, as Chairperson of the Committee, write to you in order to indicate the contrary? The answer lies with the use of section 6 of the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That legislation provides the cover for the Department to make cash advances from the Consolidated Fund.
Members noted with concern that, despite the very significant additional cash that has been available throughout the year, the cash-advance facility had reportedly been almost exhausted by February 2021. Consequently, it was understood that, if accelerated passage had been denied to the Budget Bill, Departments would literally have run out of money before the end of March, thus endangering essential services, possibly including COVID-19 supports. Members had not been warned of that and learned of it, with some alarm, only at the very recent Committee meeting. Members felt that, faced with the possibility of essential services stopping, they had no option other than to accede to the Minister's request for accelerated passage.
The Assembly may find it notable that, whereas some advances had been repaid in 2021, others were not, thus leading to the facility becoming almost exhausted. As one can imagine, that is a highly unsatisfactory outcome, which, to some degree, replicates the experience of this time last year, despite the extra £3·3 billion that was made available from our Exchequer. I anticipate therefore that some Members might seek to remedy the situation either through the good offices of the Committee on Procedures or through a suitable legislative vehicle.
I will turn now to the substance of the Bill. The proposed legislation provides legal cover for expenditure in 2021 and, insofar as it refers to the Vote on Account, also provides legal cover for some spending in 2021-22. For the present financial year, I advised the House yesterday of the unique situation in which the Executive have found themselves. A global pandemic found its way to Northern Ireland. Many people lost their lives. Sadly, many continue to do so. Many others have suffered emotional and financial loss as a consequence of the pandemic.
The Executive received from our Government very substantial additional support, which was most welcome. That enabled the provision of numerous support schemes for hard-pressed individuals, families and businesses. In that regard, there is much to be welcomed in the Executive's financial response to the crisis. There were, however, also issues with Land and Property Services (LPS) effectively retooling itself from a collection agency to a distribution agency. Additionally, uptake of some schemes was much lower than expected, and some important sectors and individuals have, with some justification, felt overlooked. That having been said, the Minister gave us some hope yesterday that that situation might yet be addressed for some.
The upshot of all the additional money, new support schemes and underspending on other, non-pandemic-related services has been a little bit complex, to say the least. We have had multiple allocations outside of the usual in-year monitoring rounds. We have had three — not two — Budget Bills and a significant reconciliation between the Main Estimates and the spring Supplementary Estimates, including around £1 billion of headroom being included in the latter. Unspent resources apparently amount to hundreds of millions of pounds, which has necessitated a special carry-over arrangement with HM Treasury. The Committee still awaits clarity on the unspent resources for the current financial year. I have no doubt that the Minister will furnish us with those details as soon as they are available.
With all of that going on, it is not surprising that the Committee did not feel appropriately consulted. To be clear, the Department and Minister have engaged cooperatively and have genuinely sought to explain. Most of the difficulties were probably not of the Department's making. Instead, they were often the product of circumstances or difficulties at the Executive. Nonetheless, if Standing Orders are to be fulfilled in a manner that ensures transparency in Budget scrutiny, a new approach is definitely required. That may involve a new Budget memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive and a very clear role for an independent fiscal council. I suspect, however, that, in order to manage what appears to be a perennially uncertain process, new legislation will be required.
As I indicated previously, the Vote on Account provides legal cover for spending in 2021-22, which can include new services. Although no such new services are footnoted in the Vote on Account, I will, as is usual, now make remarks on the draft Budget for 2021-22. The Committee gratefully received feedback from all the Statutory Committees that, despite the short timescale, have done their best to interrogate departmental submissions. The Chairpersons of those Committees will undoubtedly and — I am sure looking around me — eloquently refer to the pressures that their Departments face. I will, therefore, merely give the House the key points.
It is surprising that Infrastructure has received far less capital in the draft Budget than it sought, and that, consequently, it may be unable to fund in full the capital aspects of Northern Ireland Water's draft determination. Some of us had assumed that capital would be used to jump-start economic activity in 2021-22, and that, coupled with a large number of related and currently unfunded Department for the Economy resource bids, is most worrying.
I will now turn to other resource issues. The Department for Communities shortfall in its draft resource budget is projected to be significant. The absence of COVID support schemes and labour interventions for that Department may lead to substantial delays in the receipt of benefits when furlough ends and an unavoidable increase in AME spending on social security. That appears to look like a false economy.
Turning to the Department of Justice, there is an alarming possibility of a cut to PSNI numbers instead of the promised increase. The funding is yet to be determined for the victims' pension scheme that will be administered by the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Finance has advised that the actual estimate may be anywhere between £600 million and £1·2 billion over the lifetime of the scheme. All Members agree that the continuing absence of clarity on that issue is not acceptable.
For Agriculture, there are concerns regarding a number of relatively modest but very important and unfunded bids, including those relating to pillar 2 replacement funding and bovine tuberculosis eradication. For Health, there is the absence of funding to support the post-pandemic catch-up necessary for hospital waiting lists as well as concerns about delayed transformation programmes. For Education, there are concerns about special educational needs and the school restart programme.
Much of the feedback from the Committees refers to unfunded bids and an over-reliance on in-year monitoring. It seems that, every year, the Budget process is different, and it seems that, every year, there is a different reason for that. It also seems that this year will be the same as all the others, despite COVID and the increase in funding from our Exchequer.
The Committee hopes that the independent fiscal council, coupled with a new memorandum of understanding between the Executive and the Assembly, possibly backed up by legislation, may offer us a way out of a process that I cannot believe that anyone finds satisfactory. Whether it be for 2020-21 or 2021-22, there has to be a better way to do Budget scrutiny. The Minister, as a former Finance Committee Chairperson who denied accelerated passage for a Budget No. 2 Bill in 2012, is, indeed, sincere in wanting to find such a way forward. In the meantime, and on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Second Stage of the Budget Bill to the House in the hope that, next time, we will all be able to do much better.

Paul Frew: I rise to discuss and debate the Budget Bill. Of course, the Minister is absolutely right that a very important Bill comes before the Assembly today. I agree with everything that the Chairperson said about the Finance Committee's experience over the past year. I place on record that I welcome, thank and respect the officials who have come before the Committee over the past year. They are very informed, at the top of their game. They have grappled not only with the challenges of the health pandemic and the economic crisis but with members of the Committee as well. At times, of course, those sessions can be robust, but that is good and healthy in a democratic society. I welcome the officials' expertise at all times when they come before the Committee because they really help us.
Of course, the Committee is there not only to scrutinise but to support and advise. As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, I take that role very seriously.
I will turn to the Budget. I agree with the Chair that there has to be a better way of scrutinising a Budget Bill. Having said that, we are a devolved Assembly and not a sovereign Government. We get Barnett consequentials, the block grant and all that that entails. You struggle to think of a more effective and efficient way until you stumble upon one, so whilst we are in this environment, we will do the best we can, as a Committee and as an Assembly.
The Assembly has a vital role, and I am glad that the Chairpersons of all the Committees have a part to play in the debate, as, of course, do ordinary Committee members, if they so wish. It is vital to get that message on record and to get their concerns and fears on record, and I hope that the Finance Minister will listen to those fears and concerns, not only today and through the various stages of the Bill but throughout the year, because there will be information flow today that could well be of some use come the monitoring rounds. That is vital because, as the Chairperson said, it seems that we rely heavily on monitoring rounds, even with a one-year Budget, to move money about, not least in the year of crisis that we have just come through. That is not necessarily a negative, because you do not want Departments to cling on to money that they may not spend. There is a real danger of handing money back to Treasury when it could be spent here in an efficient and effective way when our people are crying out for it and crying out for support. It is important that we spend as much money here as we possibly can for the benefit of our people.
There are some aspects that I wish to go into in detail. This issue seems to recur every time we speak on a Budget debate or a financial motion. There is a real fear that, if we are not standing still, we seem to be going backwards on many issues that were important to our people and to the Assembly last year, the year before that and the year before that. Some of those issues and problems are big beasts. They are massive to grapple with and will take a massive amount of funding.
I am sure that the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee will go into this in detail, but I have a real concern — not for the future but for the present day — about NI Water and the infrastructure and capacity, especially in respect of waste water. It is a massive issue, but, for a lot of our constituents and our population, it is under the ground and under the radar, and they do not yet see the potential blockage — pardon the pun — that we will all face.
It is not only about the fact that NI Water is not funded efficiently and effectively — of course, as an organisation, NI Water badly needs reform — but it is about the stopping and blocking up of every construction and every development in our system. It is not just waste water plants but includes housing developments and businesses, and I can see the evidence of that, very much so, in my constituency of North Antrim, where I know of developers not being able to select a certain site because of the waste water issue. That is dynamite for our people when we are looking to attract jobs, investment, employment, business and profit but are being stopped in our tracks because of an infrastructure issue that needs to be dealt with not today, not next week and not next year, but three years ago, five years ago and 10 years ago.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a very valid point and draws direct attention to the exacting issue facing the Department for Infrastructure. Does he agree that the Department for Infrastructure is massively underfunded and that the Minister of Finance should have provided for the bids made by Minister Mallon this year rather than running around at the last minute with a wheelbarrow full of cash saying, "Take it now"?

Paul Frew: Yes. I thank the Member for his intervention. I raised that point yesterday. It is not that I want to see an axe grind between the particular Minister and her party and the Finance Minister, because the Minister and her party can defend themselves. However, it is clear that the Department for Infrastructure made 40 bids last year. Of those bids, 34 were COVID-related and 33% were successful. Having looked at the figures and data, I know that the Infrastructure Department made multiple bids over and over again, which explains some of that. I am not for one moment saying that there should have been a 100% success rate for that Department, because there is a role for it to play and it all has to be attested, but those figures are striking. I see that the Member wants me to give way again.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to point out some of the detail. The outcome for the Department from the 2021-22 Budget was £420·7 million. That is an increase of £2·8 million, which is a 0·7% increase on the 2020-21 opening resource allocation of £417 million. That is proportionally less of an increase than for any other Department and less than the average departmental increase of 6%. That identifies a key issue that needs to be resolved, and the Finance Minister has the wallet to do it.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is a point well made, and I am sure that the Finance Minister will tackle and grapple with that in his response.

A Member: Give me strength.
[Laughter.]

Paul Frew: It is important, and I am sure that, in our constituencies, we are all experiencing and finding issues with NI Water and waste water systems.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew: Yes, I will.

Jim Allister: Does the Member also agree that that is because of a lack of joined-up government? If you take the small village of Armoy in our constituency as an example, you see that the Housing Executive and planning have approved a modest number of new social housing units, yet they cannot be built because the infrastructure is not there. Is there not a need for a joined-up overview of development that links to infrastructural needs across the Province?

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. He made that point well. We have experienced it all in North Antrim, and Armoy is not the only place where it happens. Some people may not be aware that there is now a blockage on investment where they live. If some of those residents looked to open up a business or factory, they would soon find that they would be completely impeded.
It normally affects housing, which is massive for people, but it also affects jobs, employment and prosperity. It affects all those things. It is a massive issue that we need to get to grips with. I believe that it will take the Executive as a whole to sort it out. It cannot be left to one Department in a silo, a number of Departments in silos or a Finance Minister on his own. It will take a holistic approach, and I am not sure that any work, or as much as should have been, has been done on it this year. That might be because of the pandemic and the crisis that we have been in, but that is only an excuse.

Daniel McCrossan: Will the Member give way briefly?

Paul Frew: That is not a reason not to do those things. I will give way to the Member again.

Daniel McCrossan: The Member's party has had some influence over the last few years with the British Government. Given the huge problems with infrastructure deficits that we face here in Northern Ireland, surely the Minister and leader of the DUP could persuade Boris Johnson to divert the funds for his beloved tunnel to tackle some of the deficits across Northern Ireland that badly need to be addressed.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, he made a valid point about how we can progress infrastructure. Of course, he will know about the DUP's confidence-and-supply arrangement, and I am sure that he will applaud and thank us for that. It brought in a lot of money for infrastructure across the Province, even for internet access. His constituency will benefit greatly from that, and I will take another intervention from the Member if he wants to thank the DUP for that work.
There has to be a balance and cost-effectiveness in every piece of progress that we make on infrastructure.
When I hear about a tunnel or a bridge linking Northern Ireland to GB or Scotland, I do not think only of the physical infrastructure. I think of the opportunities that it brings for trade, mobility and energy supply interconnection.

Roy Beggs: Members, may I draw you back to the Bill rather than talking about tunnels etc?

Paul Frew: I will try not to go down a blind tunnel, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members can see where there could be opportunities with the interconnection of our energy supply, which, again, is vital infrastructure. We need to resolve issues with the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) so that it is truly independent.
That brings me to another point about multi-year Budgets. It will be very hard for an Executive, as holistic as they could be, to spend money effectively and efficiently if we do not reach the point of multi-year Budgets. It is vital to get to that point. I do not blame the Department of Finance or the Finance Minister for the issue because it is not his problem. He can work only with what he has been given. It is an issue for our sovereign Government. We should get to the point, sooner rather than later, where we have multi-year Budgets. We can then look at long-term projects, because, let us be clear, when you build a hospital or a school with massive infrastructure or new roads, it takes longer than a year. Therefore, that has to be planned very carefully. It still feels as if we are going backwards.
In New Decade, New Approach and in Patten, 7,500 police officers were promised. Those are peacetime figures, but we are falling short. Even in this Budget, we are told that we could lose police officers; numbers could go down. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. That in itself will add to pressures elsewhere.

Mike Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way, and I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. I want to put on record that the current police complement is 7,005 officers. The Chief Constable has warned that, on current budgetary terms, he may lose 300 officers. Compared with the commitment in New Decade, New Approach of 7,500 officers, that is a net loss of 800 — over 10%. I hope that the Member agrees that that is not tolerable.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is not tolerable at all. It is simply not acceptable, in this day and age with the society that we have, the crime rates as they are, the terrorist threat as it is, to have that number of officers. Nobody who has looked at and studied the police has ever come to that total or established that figure. That is why it is important. If the Executive get to the point of shedding a number of police officers, we have a massive fundamental question about whether we are protecting our people and making sure that they are safe. That is a fundamental aspect of government no matter where you are in the world.
Where is Bengoa's health transformation? What progress has been made? What progress is in the Budget Bill? Where can we see that transformation? Do not get me wrong: health has been in the grip of the pandemic, at the cutting edge, at the tip of the spear and on the front line of this crisis, but we still have to transform the service, even in the midst of a crisis. Do you know something? There will be a crisis next year and the year after that. We will always find an excuse not to transform our health service. It is vital that we grapple with that now because every week that we waste affects our people, not just in death but in the value of living. That is very important.
I will mention the victims' payment scheme and my grave concerns that it is not in the Budget. There is a legal duty on the Executive to cater for and fund pensions for victims of terrorism. It is comparable to the provision in the TEO budget for historical institutional abuse issues. I will tell you why: they, too, are innocent victims who have had injury and pain brought upon them through no fault of their own. If we can make provision for victims of historical institutional abuse, surely we can make provision for victims' pensions.
I know that there is a debate and argument to be had with none other than the Secretary of State, Mr Lewis, who continues to claim that the pension will cost £28 million in its first year. We know that the Government Actuary's Department has estimated that the first year will cost between £70 million and £145 million. The total cost of the scheme could be £1·2 billion. That money must come, and I agree with the Executive that it must come from the British Government. However, we cannot wait any longer to remunerate the victims for the pain that they have suffered and will continue to suffer. They have been affected so badly that they have not been able to work in the way that we have been able to work. These innocent victims of terrorism have not been able to progress their life in the way that they should have been allowed to do.
The party and the Minister opposite — I will support him 100% — will push to get that money in whatever way that they can. However, the truth in all of this is that, while we shout for the British Government to pay up, we have to remember who the victim-makers were. Some 60% of those victims were created by republican terrorists, not least the Provisional IRA, to which the party opposite is linked. Right across society, all those bombs and assassinations had a massive impact on people's lives.
Every party in the House has stated that the religious orders and the institutions that were involved in the historical abuse cases should pay up. If they were to do so, would it be so outwith the bounds of reality to ask the victim-makers — Sinn Féin, the political party of the Provisional IRA — to pay some of the burden of the victims' pension? This is a massive issue. Victims need to be remunerated and compensated for the pain that they have suffered through terrorism.
I see nothing in the spring Supplementary Estimates about such provision or the creation of any headroom. I see nothing in the Budget Bill to give those victims succour as they go forward with the remaining part of their life. The Assembly should not tolerate that. We should no longer tolerate failure in that regard; we should get this money to the victims.
One of the massive issues in the near future will be lockdown damages. There is absolutely no doubt about the impact that lockdown has had on businesses, communities and people. It is important that we recognise that. We will not get daily statistics, as we do with the COVID pandemic, on how people have suffered economically, mentally and physically during lockdown. Nonetheless, the pain and suffering are there. I see very little in the Budget Bill to reflect the reality of what lockdown has done to our people. Many parties in the House, mainly the party opposite, will blame Tory austerity for all the ills that occur over this period. There is no doubt that cutting our cloth to suit our Budget was always going to be painful, but think of the damage and potential damage from lockdown. Will the party opposite, including the Finance Minister, take its share of the blame and bear its share of the burden of the impact of lockdown that the Executive have imposed on our people and businesses?

Matthew O'Toole: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He talks about lockdown and COVID as if they were two different things. He almost literally said that they were two different things: he said that there were daily COVID statistics but no daily statistics on the impact of lockdown. There are different views on how we handled lockdown and restrictions at different times. I will not go into those or have an argument about whether we should have eased restrictions at certain points. Does he accept that lockdown was a product of COVID and that there was no other way of dealing with the pandemic when the case numbers got so high in our community, as has been the case throughout the world? Sadly, I see that the Isle of Man, where all restrictions had been lifted, has, unfortunately, gone back into lockdown.

Roy Beggs: I will allow the Member to briefly comment on that, but, again, I remind everyone that this debate is on the Budget Bill.

Paul Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the Budget Bill, I see no way of supporting people who have suffered due to the lockdown. The Member made a good point on lockdown in his intervention. He suggests that it was the only way to deal with the pandemic. There are many ways to deal with a health pandemic, and there have been many ways used over the last 100 years to deal with pandemics. However, lockdown was not in that book and was not a factor over the last 100 years. There are other ways of dealing with pandemics. I am not saying that lockdown was the wrong way, but, again, let us see the science and the data.
The only time that the Executive published the data on lockdown, they were cut to pieces because it showed that there was no logic to some of the decisions on the lockdown. I want to see proof in the Bill of how we are going to support people. How are we going to support hairdressers who were deprived of earning a living? How are we going to support the single mum of two children who, if it had not been for the help of an aunt, would not have had enough food for her children to eat? That is the reality of today.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. What about support for the families who have lost loved ones as a result of the rapid spread of infection throughout our communities, which, some would say, was due to the Executive's insufficient, slow and protracted action and decision-making that has been far from good?

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, we await with anticipation information on the speed of the actions that the Executive will announce today on how we are going to get out of this crisis and on the pathway to recovery. Let us see how fast the Executive can operate to support those people.
The Member is right to point out that this has been an awful year for illness due to a virus that we knew very little about this time last year. We knew of COVID, of course, because it is not new, but we knew nothing about COVID-19, and we had to learn quickly. There have been actions taken and mistakes made, and I am not going to be too hard on people who have taken action and made decisions, even if, at some point, they were the wrong ones. That is just the job that we are in, and we have to make sure that we make decisions to try to save people's lives.
It has been a horrendous year when some people have died before their time. I get that — I really do — but there is no point then in putting further pressure on our population and industry when the science and the data is not being published for us all to see. Let us face it: there has been a fundamental weakness, because MLAs only get to hear about what is happening on the news at the same time as the rest of our population. We are not privy to the Executive's actions or to what the data suggests. As I said, the only time that the Executive published the data, they were torn to pieces because some of the decisions had no logic.

Daniel McCrossan: Will the Member take a brief intervention?

Paul Frew: No, I will make progress, because I risk the wrath of the Deputy Speaker. I have tested his patience for long enough, so I will move on.
Throughout our Departments, it is vital that, maybe for the first time, there is a collegiate approach to Budget-making and that we remove the silos. We are doing this Budget in a vacuum, because we do not have an up-to-date Programme for Government. Really and truly, those two should run line by line, because they are parallel processes that complement each other. You cannot really do one efficiently, effectively and sufficiently without the other, so to set a Budget, even a flat Budget, without a Programme for Government that outlines your priorities is not the most effective and efficient way to do things. We really should have been in a position to publish a new Programme for Government to complement the Budget.
It would have made much more sense, and the Assembly would have been able to scrutinise the Executive's priorities better.
As I have outlined, there are massive concerns around infrastructure and the transformation of the health service, but what about education? The education of our young people has been destroyed this year. They will never make that time up. You cannot be educated at home in the same way in which you can be educated at school. Parents are not teachers, so they cannot provide the same service, especially if they are working eight hours a day from home. It is impossible.
As I said, those children will never make that time up, and I am not even sure that we should be telling them that they are going to make it up. The Executive have to do something about it now. They have to try to rescue the situation for those year groups that have struggled this year, for those year groups that will struggle next year and for those year groups that are looking at pending exams. How will we support them? How will we help them? How will we assist them? I do not see how we will do that in this Budget Bill.
The Member was right to interject about the Department for Infrastructure, but the Department of Education is the same. Education made 56 bids, of which 42 were COVID bids and 14 non-COVID bids, which was the highest number of non-COVID bids submitted by any Department in this place in the past year. Less than 50% were successful. That is no way in which to treat our children. Let us therefore see the evidence in the Budget Bill of support for our children. They are the future of this country, and have we not let them down so badly in the past year? They will never get that year back. In fact, it is more than a year. Who knows what is ahead of us? I do not, however, see any evidence that we will support children with this Bill.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to let that comment go unchecked. We have to have higher confidence in our teaching and non-teaching staff and in our children and young people in Northern Ireland that they will do everything that they can to sustain their learning. The Member's colleague holds the post of Education Minister and has invested in the Engage programme. I will critique that programme, but to say in the Chamber that there has been no investment made, no work done and support provided for our children and young people to maintain their learning is irresponsible.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. At no time, did I utter those words. The Member has to be careful when he makes an interjection that what he says is factful. In his intervention, he did not mention the real, deep impacts that children have suffered this year, not just in education terms but in societal terms, mental health terms and mobility terms: all those aspects. He did not mention all that children gain from being in school with their peers, being taught by teachers, with a principal to guide them. He did not mention other staff, the caretaker and the dinner ladies. All those people are part of a family, and children have been separated from that family for too long. Let us therefore see what the Executive produce today on opening up our schools and allowing —.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew: No, I will not, because I think that the Member was irresponsible the last time that he made an intervention, when he tried to put words in my mouth. I will allow anyone to make an intervention in the House, but we need to keep it real, folks.
I went through some of the Departments for which I feel that there is grave weakness in the Budget Bill. That weakness needs to be resolved, if not through the Bill, through monitoring rounds and by getting to grips with the issues and problems that our society faces in the coming weeks and months. They are mighty. They are grave. We need the Executive to step up and support our people like they have never supported our people before so that we can get out of this and find a road to recovery. That should be sooner rather than later.

Declan McAleer: I will outline the Committee's position on some aspects of the DAERA budget.
I start with our concerns about timing. The Committee requested that DAERA officials provide oral evidence on 4 February. However, at the last minute, DAERA was unable to provide the briefing papers and the evidence session was moved to 11 February. Even then, the relevant papers were provided late, leaving Committee members little time to consider and digest the information provided. The lateness of the evidence session left the Committee with no time to follow up on queries. For example, the written briefing did not cover the budget allocations by DAERA to its arm's-length bodies, and the tight timing meant that the Committee has been unable to cover that aspect. We have requested information in writing and are waiting for it to be provided.
I will outline the Committee's consideration of the DAERA budget proposals. The draft budget proposals provide for £544·2 million of resource DEL and £95·5 million capital DEL. While that includes replacement by Treasury of the funding previously provided by the EU for farm payments, there is still a shortfall arising from the replacement of pillar 2 funding that I will cover later.
In general, the Committee is aware that, in the spending review outcome for here, everyday expenditure is standing still and there is no additional block funding for DAERA.
The Committee heard that DAERA will press the Finance Department for additional resource DEL and capital DEL funding. That is to take forward the important work on the green growth strategy and the bovine TB eradication strategy in particular. The Committee has indicated support for the additional funding.
DAERA has been able to secure additional funding from Treasury for its work on EU exit, as well as water reform and climate change initiatives. The Committee welcomes that additional funding.
Overall, on resource DEL, the Committee is aware that DAERA faces a shortfall of £33·9 million, most of which arises from the shortfall in replacement EU funding. The Committee is aware that the impact of EU exit on DAERA's remit has been wide and far-reaching, particularly in connection with food supply and the agri-food industry. DAERA now has new responsibilities and functions allocated to it, as powers return from the EU. It also needs to implement and deliver on the compliance checks now required as part of the protocol and EU exit.
The Committee questioned officials on aspects of the EU exit. We note that sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks at ports and the international airport are funded through a separate exercise with Treasury and that the details of that funding were not included in the budget documents. The Committee has requested an additional written briefing on that aspect. It is also aware that the relevant local authorities have staff working alongside DAERA officials at the ports of Larne, Warrenpoint and Belfast. We have asked for clarity on the relationship between local authority and DAERA staff, how many DAERA and local authority staff are employed at each point of entry and details of the role, remit and financing of those staff.
I turn to the replacement of EU funding by Treasury, as promised in the manifesto commitment. The Committee has registered concerns regarding the shortfall of about £14·4 million in 2021-22 against pillar 1, pillar 2 and common market organisation (CMO) funding. It has been netted off because it has been carried over from the EU funding sources. The Committee is disappointed by that approach by Treasury.
There is another shortfall of £5·1 million that was obtained by the EU fund for disease eradication. That fund had been used in previous years towards the costs of bovine TB eradication. It is not being replaced by the Treasury and therefore represents a shortfall in its budgetary requirements. The budget for bovine TB has, over the last few years, varied between £36 million and £40 million per year, so to lose £5 million is a substantial shortfall. The Committee questioned officials on that point, and they responded that, in recent years, the incidence rate of bovine TB was downward, meaning that less funding was required, although it is a statutory responsibility and therefore must be funded. Additionally, the Committee heard that it was the intention of DAERA to manage shortfalls either through internal reallocations or the monitoring round process.
The Committee is concerned about the lack of information and clarity on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). It was assumed that it would be the replacement funding for the previous EU structural funds invested in rural development. In October, the Chancellor announced that £220 million would be allocated in the 2021-22 year to help areas to prepare for the introduction of the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is part of a wider investment framework and not devolved to each Administration. The Committee is concerned that there is no detail on the method of allocating the Shared Prosperity Fund between the four Administrations. It is also concerned that it appears that the funding will be administered centrally by Whitehall and that there are no guarantees that the funding allocated to here will be ring-fenced for rural development.
I turn now to another priority of the Committee — the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme (TRPSI). TRPSI funding is used for a range of initiatives in rural areas to support a range of community-based projects, from developing youth entrepreneurship to assisting farmers and supporting positive mental and physical health. Given the positive outcomes that TRPSI has had for rural communities and the impact that it has had during COVID, the Committee considers that the programme should be a priority for DAERA. The DAERA budget document provided information on the funding allocated to TRPSI and noted that, in 2018-19 and 2019-2020, TRPSI was funded under the confidence-and-supply allocations. In 2020-21, it was funded by the Executive, but the funding was not baselined. Although £1·8 million funding has not been formally allocated at the draft budget stage, it is part of anticipated confidence-and-supply funding that will be allocated to DAERA for 2021-22. The Committee expressed concerns that the TRPSI revenue DEL funding had not been allocated and was not baselined. It registered that it is also a concern for DAERA and that discussions are ongoing on that matter.
The next matter that I want to draw attention to is the bovine TB eradication strategy. I have mentioned the shortfall in funding due to the EU funding not being replaced by the Treasury. The Committee has recently been briefed on bovine TB and is aware of the work of the TB strategic partnership and the Department on a new bovine TB eradication strategy. The Committee has been made aware that the new eradication strategy would cost more in the short to medium term but that, longer term, it should result in a reduction in costs to the taxpayer and farmers. The Committee is also conscious that the current incidence rates, although falling, could become a barrier to trade and agrees with the DAERA assessment that work towards eradication is essential. The Committee is aware that DAERA is in discussions with the Finance Department to secure the additional funding that is required and wishes it to be known that it supports that position.
I turn now to funding for the DAERA arm's-length bodies, such as the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), the Loughs Agency and the Fishery Harbour Authority. The Committee noted its disappointment that there was no mention of funding for ALBs, other than some reference to capital DEL for AFBI. The Committee has requested a written briefing on that aspect of the DAERA budget and hopes to be in a position to report on it during the Budget Bill debate.
Woodland creation is another area that the Committee is concerned about. It noted that £3·4 million of the £95·5 million capital DEL was allocated to woodland creation via the rural development programme (RDP) forestry programme. It is to help landowners plant native woodland, and it is a green growth foundation programme. The Committee has recently examined the difficulties being experienced in the importation of trees and saplings from Britain. I will not go into the technical difficulties, but the Committee has written to the British Government on behalf of the horticulture sector and garden centres on those and other matters. The Committee emphasises that the EU and the British Government should use every means possible to sort out the issues.
The Committee also noted that £15·6 million of capital DEL is to be allocated to the green growth foundation programmes. Those programmes are not yet fully developed, but they will be schemes and projects that will fall under a carbon-neutral programme, with the aim of working towards a target of zero by 2050. The Committee is disappointed that no further information on those schemes was made available.
Climate change is a priority for the AERA Committee. 'New Decade, New Approach' makes a significant commitment to tackling climate change and the introduction of legislation and targets to reduce carbon emissions. The Committee tabled a motion for debate by the Assembly in July 2020 calling for the Minister to bring forward climate change legislation urgently. The Committee was briefed by DAERA on its climate change discussion document before that document went out for consultation. That consultation has closed. The Committee was to be briefed again on 18 February on the initial outcome of that consultation and on the plans and timescale for climate change legislation. That briefing did not happen because the papers for it were not cleared in time by the private office. The Committee has written in strong terms to DAERA on the matter of non-provision of papers.
When questioned about the budget allocation to the climate change priority, DAERA staff referred again to the capital allocation of £15·6 million for the green growth foundation programme. They stated that proposals were being developed and that the Committee would be briefed in due course. That is not satisfactory to the Committee. Climate change is a priority, and, when we ask about the budget for it, we are constantly referred to the green growth strategy, which is still in development and about which there is little detail. Furthermore, reference was made to the funding allocated to existing programmes funded by the EU, but those were developed years ago as part of the rural development programme. They are not new, and there is a lack of specifics from DAERA on what is a Committee priority, which is worrying.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). As well as its reference to climate change, the 'NDNA' document refers to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency (IEPA). The Committee is also aware of the UK Government's Environment Bill and its provisions for an Office for Environmental Protection. The OEP will have a role and remit that extends to this jurisdiction. On 31 December 2020, the environmental oversight role of the European Commission ceased. It was originally envisaged that the OEP would be established on 1 January and take on that role, but it is not now expected to become fully operational until late 2021. The Committee has expressed concerns that that delay in the creation of the OEP will leave a governance gap in environmental oversight. When questioned about that, DAERA officials referred to the Department's consultation on environmental plans, principles and governance, which was due to close on 26 February. It is also envisaged that a robust economic appraisal would be required, as significant resource would be needed for the UKG Environment Bill.
The Committee also noted a recent announcement by DAERA on 16 February about the establishment of a new body, the Interim Environmental Governance Secretariat (IEGS), on a temporary basis. That is in connection with the governance gap in the environmental oversight role previously carried out by the European Commission. Its key role in the North will be the management of complaints. It will operate until later in the year, when the proposed OEP is expected to be established. The Committee is disappointed that that was not mentioned by officials when answering questions on the OEP on 11 February, and we have now requested a written briefing on it.

Colin McGrath: Today, I would like to reflect on the opportunities for the Executive Office to make a difference in people's lives in the year to come. I would like to talk about the hopes that we have as a Committee to see the good work undertaken through Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) to continue to foster hope and good relations in our divided society. I would like to talk about the dedication of officials and community workers alike, which will be continued into the future. I would like to say how delighted the Committee is that support will continue for victims and survivors of the conflict or, indeed, about those further developments for our minority ethnic communities. I would like to detail how strategic investment will be undertaken in the future, and I would like to talk about the work that arm's-length bodies will do with the money that they are to receive in the coming year. But I cannot. I cannot, because I do not know and the Committee does not know what the Department will spend its money on.
It is true that we can see in the draft budget that the Department is to receive £118 million in 2021-22, and we know from an oral briefing last Wednesday that £58 million will go on the baseline funding for the Department; £46 million on historical institutional abuse (HIA) payments; nearly £7 million for the implementation for victims' pensions; £4 million as match funding for EU programmes; and nearly £3 million in EU exiting funds. In addition, the Department will receive £15 million for capital projects such as Ebrington, Urban Villages and the Maze/Long Kesh development. However, the Committee did not receive any written papers on this at all. I will leave that to fill the air a bit: a scrutiny Committee that was given nothing to scrutinise. It begs this obvious question: what do they have to hide?
The Committee did not have sight of the submission by the Department to the Department of Finance about its financial needs, so maybe the Finance Minister can tell us when he saw it and, given that we have not seen it, what is in this elusive and secret paper.
The Committee did not have input to departmental spending priorities for the coming year.
Financial scrutiny is one of the most fundamental tasks that a Committee undertakes in holding the Executive accountable to the public. Financial accountability is a bedrock principle of democratic governance. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sets out 10 principles for budgetary governance. One of those is to:
"Provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices."
In this case, we had no debate on the budgetary choices and nothing inclusive, participative, realistic or otherwise. Principles that are set down by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) state that the Executive are to:
"transmit Bills and other documents for parliamentary action for timely distribution to Members."
The Committee has still not seen what the Department is specifically spending its money on, and here we are with a Budget Bill being debated in the House.
Another CPA principle is that:
"Opportunities shall be given for public input into the legislative and Committee process, including the budget".
How can the public provide input if the Committee is not being sufficiently informed to do so? The Inter-Parliamentary Union refers to:
"Mechanisms to ensure effective parliamentary engagement in the ... budget process in all its stages"
but the Committee was presented with a fait accompli. The Committee wants to do its job. We want to ensure that the practice of good financial governance is alive and well in this legislature. We want to demonstrate to the public that the Executive are being held to account. We want to contribute to the process of discussing and developing the financial priorities of our Executive Office. We want to be a conduit for the views of the public — young and old people; women and men; disabled people; people of any social, religious or ethnic identity — in the development of policy and legislation. That is our job.
The Committee is all too aware of the challenges with bringing forward a Budget in the current circumstances, particularly with the financial pressures on the Department. We have heard that the shared future funding that was derived from the Fresh Start Agreement is to run out this financial year.

Mike Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Committee for giving way. As he knows, the role of the Committee is to assist and advise Ministers, but how can you do that if you are not given the information with which to assist and advise?
The Department has form. Mr Lyttle will recall the day when we were in receipt of about 100 pages of financial information five minutes before the start of a Committee meeting. Mr Lyttle, as Deputy Chair, and I, as Chair, decided that we would withdraw rather than take the risk, six months later, of being told, "But sure you were given those papers at a Committee meeting". The Department has form, and the Chair has my sympathy.

Colin McGrath: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is what we are slowly learning: Fresh Start; New Decade, New Approach — yes.
The Committee, as I said, is all too aware of the challenges in bringing forward the Budget. As I said, the shared future funding that was derived from the Fresh Start Agreement is to run out this financial year. From where will the money come for the excellent community relations programmes that we have heard about in Committee? It is not an easy question to answer, but the Committee must be part of that conversation.
I cannot speak about future spending without referring to the pension for people injured in the conflict. The Committee has consistently called for that to be paid, and quickly. The Department now has a duty to do so, but clearly that cannot be provided for in the current Budget. We look forward to working with the Executive to investigate ways in which that commitment can be honoured. As a Committee, we want to work with the Department on so many fronts. However, our work is being frustrated by a Department that will not provide us with papers on time, will not provide us with financial information about departmental spending and is making a mockery of the Committee structure and process.
I wish to make some remarks in my capacity as an SDLP MLA for South Down.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for granting me the intervention. As the Deputy Chairperson of a Committee, I am alarmed to hear of the experiences of the Chairperson and his Committee. Did he write to the Executive Office asking for an explanation as to why the Committee did not receive any papers? I am genuinely interested.

Colin McGrath: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am tempted to say, "Do not make me laugh". When we write, we do not get answers to our letters or, sometimes, they take so long that, by the time that we actually get a response, the question and the issue that we raised have expired. We did communicate and are communicating with the Department. We mentioned it to the officials but, as I referenced earlier, only last Wednesday, they came to the Committee without any papers. We await the response.
I am, of course, conscious that we continue to live under the shadow of COVID-19. The Budget must be viewed through the lens of how we emerge from COVID and the devastating impact that it has had on all of our lives. The last year that we have lived through has often felt like a lifetime. It has taught those of us who have our eyes open some unassailable facts about life here. The first is that, when we need to, we can act quickly. Finance can be found quickly for the places where it is needed most. It can be delivered to the front line and make a difference. Recently, I met council officers, who told me that the speed and agility of the funding processes in the past year helped them to make a difference in people's lives in respect of COVID. We must continue with the type of funding model that responds to people's needs quickly.
If we want the North to work, the Assembly and Executive must act quickly. That is what will define our future. The Sinn Féin Members on my right love harking to the past and trotting out lines about 10 years of austerity. The irony is that they are the ones who hold the purse strings. They are the ones who are capable of releasing funds from the Executive to be the catalyst for change in the North. Do not hark on about austerity while you preside over Departments that are handing back tens of millions of pounds unspent at the end of the year. It is up to the Finance Minister to show us the colour of his money. Should he continue to ensure that the funds that we have are unspent, that will be a clear indication of his failure as a Finance Minister. Maybe it is politically advantageous for the Finance Minister to ensure that the North is seen as not working. Regardless, with this Budget, we must act, and act now, to deliver for people.
Across my South Down constituency, there are many places in which additional funding could be transformative and help the North to work. South Down has earned the privilege of holding the jewel in our tourism crown, with Newcastle being a go-to location. This will only be enhanced this year and in the future as we emerge from COVID. I urge people to try to stay away from Newcastle while the COVID restrictions are in place and to leave it to those who live within a 10-mile radius. South Down is a destination for tourists. We must see funding, including from Tourism NI, which can sell the tourist products that we have, through to funding for tourism infrastructure on the ground.
One of our assets, which has been discussed recently, is the infamous rock pool. One of the last surviving saltwater pools across these islands, it is beloved by countless people. However, it is in need of investment for repairs and renovations. It recently suffered from being used by a DUP councillor as a means of getting cheap headlines, but that might have more to do with next year's Assembly election than anything else. The rock pool has a devoted following crying out for Executive support. I urge the Finance Minister and his officials to invest in the people of Newcastle and support our rock pool.
As we emerge from COVID and schools return to face-to-face learning, we will have to decide how we deliver this. Given that area planning will continue, as envisaged by all parties in the House, further consideration will need to be given to funding those communities who make the move as planned and suggested. Therefore, I urge the Finance Minister that, in instances where we see schools being brought together to make their contribution to reform, they must receive the capital investment that they need as part of that reform process. If communities are going to go the extra mile, the Executive must walk with them.
We have been told that we do not have the required finances in the Budget to address hospital waiting lists. In South Down, we are all too familiar with a lack of finance impacting health. Yes — before Members say it — it is time for me talk about the Downe Hospital. As long as we continue with the status quo of services and funding being stripped away from the Downe Hospital, we will find trust and confidence from people in South Down stripping away from the Government. Further investment in the Downe Hospital and its services is what is needed, not excuses and not services being stripped away at the drop of a hat. COVID is now being used as the most recent excuse to remove services from the Downe Hospital. I urge the Finance Minister to do the right thing and provide the transformative funding that is required for the health service to be able to deliver change and additional services to units such as the Downe.

Paul Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He must show me where that rock pool is, because I am down in the Mournes quite a bit. On the point about health, he raises a massive issue. Of course, last year, 95% of health bids were successful, yet we have not been able to move forward with transformation, which, to me, is crucial, even in a time of crisis. That shows that something is going wrong with the spend that Health is getting.

Colin McGrath: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that everybody accepts that there needs to be transformation in the health service. That will require upfront investment. People are prepared and ready to be part of the conversation, but it seems as though that has been going on forever. People want to see transformation take place, and that would undoubtedly see additional services delivered to the Downe Hospital.

Matthew O'Toole: As someone who originates from his part of the world, I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He talked about the rock pool. There has been a lot of talk in the Chamber recently about the negatives of the Irish Sea and the Irish Sea border. For anybody who does not know what the rock pool is, it is basically the Irish Sea in a pool by the side of the promenade in Newcastle. Perhaps some DUP Members — in fact, all MLAs — could do with a good long dunk in that chilly rock pool full of the Irish Sea. That might serve us all quite well and clear our heads. Does the Member agree?

Colin McGrath: I absolutely —.

Roy Beggs: Order. I urge Members not to have excessive debate about a local constituency issue.

Colin McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, if we are going to have a discussion, be it with Boris or whoever, about infrastructure in the Irish Sea that needs to be supported, we need to include the rock pool in Newcastle. That is what I want to see.

Steve Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Colin McGrath: Yes.

Steve Aiken: I am just glad that he does not want to put a bridge over the top of it, like you want to do at Narrow Water.

Colin McGrath: As the Member will be aware, the rock pool is a great tourist facility. The bridge that he mentions will facilitate additional footfall, additional visitors and an additional presence and will therefore support the economy in South Down. I would be delighted to see that bridge.
Politics should bring out the best in us. It is the art of the possible, yet somehow we still have many people in the North living in various forms of poverty. As long as one person here continues to live in poverty, I feel like we are failing. Regardless of what the Sinn Féin MP for South Down thinks — the one who abandoned the Infrastructure portfolio a few years ago — we should not take the approach of President Xi in China. President Xi may be committed to ending poverty, but he continues with an abhorrent policy of surveillance, arbitrary detention, forced indoctrination, conversion therapy and a string of other human rights abuses. That is quite the new ally for the republican movement. Regardless of that new stance by some, we need an anti-poverty strategy to be published and, more importantly, funded here.
I therefore implore the Finance and Communities Ministers to deliver that. To go another year once again ignoring the reality that thousands in our community face each day as a result of poverty is an abject denial of the basic function of any Government, which is to look out for those who need help the most.
I am under no illusion that the action or inaction that results from the Chamber will be definitive. For too long, the two parties that head up our Government, Sinn Féin and the DUP, have chosen the path of complacency. They cannot seem to let a day pass in the Chamber without missing the purpose of this place, instead playing to their respective galleries. It is more difficult but ultimately more rewarding to fight for what is right for all our futures. I urge all in the House to set a new course as we emerge from COVID and seek the highest ideals in order to deliver maximum results. If we do that and choose self-determination, nobody — not even the most far right Tory — can take away that which is delivered. If we at long last get it right, if we create the conditions for putting the money in the right place, if we create dignified and sure employment, and if we are willing to do that together, the North will work, and work for all people, regardless of their background, religion or ethnicity. It will simply work for everyone.

Chris Lyttle: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Budget Bill's Second Stage as the Chairperson of the Education Committee. I apologise again for my absence from yesterday's Supply resolution debate.
The COVID pandemic has claimed life and livelihood, and it has severely disrupted the education of children and young people. Unlike the DUP MLA for North Antrim, I have faith in the innovation of our teaching staff and in the resilience of our young people to overcome that challenge, if they are adequately resourced to do so.
The pandemic and the unreformed Budget process have made it challenging to assess whether that resource allocation is adequate to help them overcome the challenge. As we have rehearsed today — as, it seems, we rehearse every year in the Chamber — the timings that we work to represent an inadequate budgetary process for proper transparency and scrutiny under any circumstances. As, however, the Chairpersons of the Executive Office Committee and the Finance Committee have said, that is particularly so during a time of this type of challenge and at a time when the education and well-being of children and young people is under such challenge.
Despite that, the Education Committee has done its best in recent weeks to examine the information that we have been provided with by the Department. The additional Budget allocations from the UK Government to help us respond to the challenge that education faces are absolutely essential, but they too have complicated the budgetary process. It has been challenging for the Education Committee to establish precisely what the Department of Education has received and how exactly it has been spent. Again, however, despite what the DUP MLA for North Antrim said, there have been significant allocations made across the education system by his DUP colleague the Education Minister. It feels strange to have to defend the DUP Education Minister from his DUP colleague today, although that appears to be what I am doing. We have had allocations for free school meals during holiday periods to address holiday hunger. We have had allocations to address period product provision and allocations to the Engage programme, although, regrettably, that has not yet been extended to special schools and preschools. We have also had an allocation for the long-overdue emotional health and well-being framework. Those are all issues that the Education Committee has championed for investment. The measures have often been delivered later than is necessary, however, and they have perhaps not gone far enough for the people who need them. It is fair to say that the Education Committee has played a constructive role in platforming the challenges faced by education and the areas in need of investment. We engaged with a wide range of key stakeholders, particularly in the area of special educational needs. We also engaged with teachers, parents and pupils on a wide range of issues, including those that I mentioned.
One of the very few positives from the pandemic is the increasing awareness and appreciation of the importance of schools and the vital role that teachers and non-teaching staff play in empowering the well-being of children. We believe that teachers should be properly remunerated for the job that they do and that families should be adequately supported not only with early years investment but with a comprehensive and well-resourced childcare strategy. Schools must be supported to engage with the educational, physical and emotional development and well-being of pupils and be resourced to provide a unique pathway to support and protect vulnerable children in having equal access to educational opportunity.
The position for teaching and non-teaching pay pressures, contractual costs that will be incurred regardless of whether or not they are funded, remains unclear at this point. When the Committee received its briefing in January, teachers' pay negotiations for 2019 and 2020 remained at an early stage. That pressure was not submitted as a bid in the January monitoring round. However, we understand that the management side of the teachers' negotiating committee recently made an offer in confidence to the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council for 2019-2020 pay awards. The Committee looks forward to an early resolution of that for clarity for all educational stakeholders and hopes that the deal will represent the regard in which teachers ought to be held.
Early in the first lockdown, members of the Education Committee warned about the risks to vulnerable children and their families. We were shocked by the evidence that we received from voluntary organisations and parents regarding the extent of the disruption, and, in a number of cases, the cessation of support during later lockdowns. The Education Committee is adamant that that cannot happen again, and members seek confirmation that adequate resources will be put in place for safe and sustainable childcare, early years and education provision for all children. That means resources to rapidly deliver additional staff cover, additional accommodation space, ventilation, school testing and a special school vaccination programme, now long overdue.
The Committee endorses the view that a holistic approach to Restart is necessary, with a comprehensive and well-supported programme of activities and opportunities to support children to recover.
I noted the language used by the DUP MLA for North Antrim earlier in the debate. The record will correct me if necessary, but it was highly irresponsible language, saying that our education had been destroyed and that children will never make it up. That is language that the Education Minister himself has guided our education sector not to use, so I ask my colleague to reflect on that language and to support investment in recovery for children and young people. That will include educational, emotional and physical recovery. Far too many pupils were not accessing the recommended amount of physical activity before this pandemic. That must be addressed in Education Restart.
Before I move to capital investment, I would like to reference — which, to be fair to my North Antrim colleague, he referenced as well — the issue of multi-year settlement. The single-year budgetary approach is creating real challenge, particularly in the education sector. Indeed, it brings instability and uncertainty for many external organisations that play a vital role in the provision of education services, such as the sports programme delivered by the IFA and GAA, which is responsible for facilitating so much physical activity for pupils. It is clear that we need to move to multi-year settlements as a matter of urgency to ensure stability for that type of programme, which provides vital physical activity for children and young people.
I will move on to capital spending. The Education Department had spent 59% of its entire £143 million budget by December 2020 and anticipated a full spend by the end of the financial year. The Committee for Education received briefings from BlendED NI, the Goliath Trust and the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) on remote learning and digital inequality issues as well as the inadequacy of the C2k system, which is in much need of reform. The Committee hopes that the next capital programme will go quite some way to addressing the significant digital poverty issues that have been exposed by the pandemic and which must be addressed.
There are many other issues that are linked to the Budget that I would like to explore. For now, however, in his response, I ask the Minister to clarify the Department of Education's baseline. It appears that if we extract the New Decade, New Approach money and compare 2020-21 with 2021-22, following the spending review, the baseline has improved by around £200 million. That said, the Department has identified remaining pressures of around £300 million. Perhaps, the Minister will clarify the extent to which Education is, in fact, better or worse off.
I will now add a few comments as an Alliance Party MLA. I have said it before, and I will keep saying it: the former Education Authority CEO stated clearly that without radical investment in and radical reform of our education system, it would be unaffordable, socially immobile and unfit for the 21st century, despite the efforts of our innovative and dedicated education sector staff.
We also know that the cost of separation of education in Northern Ireland is estimated by a Department of Finance-commissioned study to be up to £100 million a year. Yet, area planning, as has been mentioned by other Members, and the rationalisation of the education system, are moving at a snail's pace.
This Budget, however we assess it, does not amount to radical investment in education, so the opportunity that is presented by the independent review of education for radical reform must be grasped by the Education Minister if we are to deliver a more integrated, affordable, socially mobile and fit-for-purpose 21st century system. Most importantly, we must deliver quality educational opportunities and outcomes for all children and young people in Northern Ireland with this Budget.

Michelle McIlveen: I will pass on the Education Committee Chairperson's high praise for the Education Minister, which I am sure he will appreciate; long may it last.
[Laughter.]
I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee for Infrastructure’s consideration and views in today's debate. I would like to quickly outline the Committee’s consideration of the 2020-21 Budget and then move on to how the 2021-22 Budget allocation impacts on the Department for Infrastructure and its ability to carry out its functions over the coming year.
The Department for Infrastructure is one of the Northern Ireland Assembly's largest spending Departments, so the Committee for Infrastructure takes its scrutiny of the Department's budget extremely seriously. The Committee, therefore, regrets that because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in and because of the lateness of the Chancellor’s spending review, the process for budget scrutiny this year has been significantly curtailed. This year’s process has not afforded the Committee the time for a more detailed engagement on the budget allocation and the Department’s proposals on how it will best spend its allocation.
The Committee for Infrastructure received a briefing from departmental officials on the draft 2021-22 Budget on 3 February 2021. The Committee also requested written briefings from the Department’s arm's-length bodies — Translink, the Drainage Council, Waterways Ireland and Northern Ireland Water — on their expectations for the Budget and their allocations.
In considering the January monitoring round, the Department advised the Committee that one resource bid for increased holiday carry-forward was submitted and would be met centrally by the Treasury for the whole of the Civil Service. The Department also advised that it had made the Department of Finance aware of some additional COVID pressures in its January monitoring submission. Those were pressures of £1·9 million for lost parking income in Roads and a small amount of PPE costs in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA).
The Department for Infrastructure also highlighted to Finance that the DVA used £10 million of its reserves in order to supplement lost income as a consequence of COVID-19 and that, unless that was reinstated, future capital investment might be hampered. To that end, the Department has been successful in securing an additional £12 million to address those pressures, which is, indeed, welcome.
The Department has also advised that, since the January monitoring round bids were submitted, two further bids were made to the Department of Finance to help to maintain the financial stability of Translink and DVA and that it has received an additional £50 million for Translink and £10 million for DVA. That will help to replenish their depleted reserves and provide a degree of financial resilience as we head into another year in which we can expect further impacts as a consequence of COVID-19.
During the briefing on 3 February, the officials outlined that the Department has received a draft resource budget of £420·7 million and a capital budget of £693·2 million, including the £70 million reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing. The Department advised the Committee that the resource budget is an increase of £2·8 million, or 0·7%, on the 2020-21 opening allocation. That 0·7% increase in the resource budget is proportionately less than the average resource increase of other Departments, which is over 6%. The Department advised the Committee that that was a disappointing outcome. The £2·8 million increase that it has received has been allocated to pressures that have been identified by Northern Ireland Water.
The Department advised the Committee that it estimated its total pressures for 2021-22 to be £103 million. It has identified its pressures for next year to be £59 million of COVID pressures, £3·6 million of EU-related pressures and £40·5 million of other pressures. When the Committee questioned what the £103 million that it has sought was for, officials advised that, although the COVID pressure is largely unknown for the coming year, the Department has made the prediction based on research that indicated that it could take several years to get back to a normal level of passenger transport and that that will clearly impact on income. Officials also outlined that, for Northern Ireland Water, the longer people work from home, the more water is used in residential settings, which does not create income for Northern Ireland Water, and the water usage by businesses, which it does charge for, is reduced significantly.
The Committee asked the officials to outline what the impact would be on the Department's work. Officials advised that it would mean that work would need to be prioritised and that the Department's core work, which includes public services such as gully cleaning, street lighting outages, grass cutting, bridge repairs and road markings, all of which are visible and impact on the lives of our constituents, may not be carried out. The officials highlighted that that comes in the wake of a number of years when there was already a limited service in those areas, which is something that we are all very aware of.
The Committee for Infrastructure noted that the increase in the capital budget for the coming financial year is £692 million. That is a £135 million, or 40%, uplift on the opening position for the current year. However, the Department has advised that that still does not meet its estimated capital requirement for next year. It estimates that it needs £888 million to carry out its functions and that £562 million of the budget will be needed for flagship, inescapable or pre-committed expenditure.
The officials advised the Committee that the estimated capital requirement was higher than in 2020-21 due to several large projects having increased spending in 2021-22. In addition, a draft determination by the Utility Regulator sets the capital requirement for Northern Ireland Water at £222 million. The Department has advised that it requires £562 million simply to meet its existing commitments without any further allocations above its top priorities. Those commitments relate to a number of flagship and inescapable projects and to areas of its business that are contractually pre-committed.
In our scrutiny, members were keen to understand the disparity between the increase in capital of 40% and in resource of 0·7%. Officials advised that such a disparity was a disappointment, which means that the Department's resources to deliver on an extensive programme of capital projects would be under severe pressure as both are inextricably linked.
In considering this disparity, the Committee supports the Department’s call for an increase in resource moneys. The Committee has taken many opportunities with the Department and Minister Mallon to emphasise the failure to draw down and utilise the unspent end-of-year finances. The Committee has called on the Department to think creatively and urgently about how to draw down funds into a range of its ongoing funding schemes and has urged it to get road maintenance schemes up and running quickly to take advantage of monitoring rounds. However, the Committee accepts that that takes an adequate resource budget.
To that end, to avoid an underspend in the coming year, the Committee supports an increased resource budget for the Department for Infrastructure to ensure that the resources exist to enable it to manage its capital programme effectively. However, it also recommends that, in the Department itself, there is a more strategic process to ensure that shovel-ready projects are always in place to take the fullest advantage of any future occasions when the Executive find themselves in the position of having an underspend. The Committee does not accept that core aspects of the Department's work should be conditional on excess money during monitoring rounds. However, given the reality of one-year budgets, there should be forward planning so that the Department can avail itself of additional funds.
The Committee had to scrutinise the Department’s finances at pace. That is not appropriate or sustainable. In future, the Committee expects to have more time to consider the budget in detail, to look at more of the figures behind the broad headings and to tease out with officials how money flows around the Department and where our Committee can offer best advice.

Roy Beggs: I call the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Colm Gildernew. I advise that I may have to interrupt him as we approach lunchtime.

Colm Gildernew: I welcome the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Health Committee. I will outline the Committee’s consideration of current financial pressures and raise some of the Committee's concerns about the Department of Health’s budget.
The Second Stage of last year’s Budget Bill was debated on 25 February 2020, and little did we know at that point of the impact that COVID-19 would have not only on the budget of the Department of Health but on wider society. The Department of Health's dashboard and NISRA figures up to 19 February show that over 2,057 deaths and 112,000 cases later, we are debating the Budget Bill again with our finances and budgets in an unprecedented set of circumstances. Our thoughts are very much with those families who have lost loved ones over the past year and those who are continuing to feel the effects of COVID-19.
Each time I get up to speak on behalf of the Committee, I rightly pay tribute to those front-line health and social care workers who have gone above and beyond what is expected. We hope that the successful roll-out of the vaccination programme and reduction in the transmission rates will allow our front-line staff some well-earned respite. I also thank the Minister and officials in the Department of Health, the board, the trusts and those in back-office roles for all their work over the past year.
I will now outline some of the Committee's concerns about the budget process and the budget for the incoming year. Over the past year, the Committee has understood the need for the Department’s budget to be flexible as it had to be reactive to pressures as they arose. However, the recent publication of waiting lists has underlined the very clear problems that the Department faces in recovering from COVID and in delivering the full range of much-needed services to patients and the wider population. It is not good that we have over 320,000 people waiting for their first outpatient appointment, with over 50% waiting for over a year.
The Committee is due to be briefed on waiting lists at its meeting next week, and it will be good to hear the Department’s plans to recover and address this issue. Waiting lists will require significant resources and highlights the need for the Department to drive forward with its transformation programme. The Committee has concerns that the current funding situation outlined by the Department will not allow the transformation programme to be taken forward with any real scale of ambition.
That only underlines the need for a fully resourced multi-year budget that will allow prioritisation and implementation of projects over a multi-year period. Indeed, a joint submission from the Chairs of all the health trusts and HSC bodies raised concerns about the proposed health budget as it was non-recurrent and prevented long-term planning and prioritisation. I urge the Executive to use the next year to plan and consult on a multi-year Budget, which would allow the health system to recover and make inroads into those increasing waiting lists.
At a recent briefing, the Committee asked questions about the costs of agency staff in the health and social care system. Just this week, the Department responded in writing. It outlined that the cost of agency staff for 2020-21 is expected to be £273 million, with forecast costs for 2021-22 of between £275 million and £300 million. The Committee appreciates that there will always be a need for a level of agency staff to deal with various pressures across the system. However, this is a significant expenditure when we are considering workforce planning and the need for additional staffing and resource in the system. Surely a large proportion of that spend could be allocated to workforce planning.
COVID recovery will be a key factor in the prioritisation of the delivery of services. We are aware of the significant pressures in relation to waiting lists and the need to restart services. There will, no doubt, be additional pressures throughout the year during the recovery from COVID, such as dealing with the impact and reality of long COVID. However, there will also be a need for significant resource to support an increased demand for current mental health programmes and to develop and implement new programmes to support people.
The Committee is here not only to scrutinise the work of the Department but to advise and assist the Minister. We look forward to working with the Department over the coming months and advising it on its work to deliver services to those in need.
If I may, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will say a few words as Sinn Féin health spokesperson. Our health and social care system is in crisis. It has been in crisis for years, and it will be in crisis for many more years until it is properly funded. Austerity has consequences. The COVID pandemic did not cause the crisis in our health service; it simply exacerbated and exposed the stresses created by the political choice of Tory Governments not to fund it properly. As the pandemic took hold here in the North, we found ourselves facing this challenge with equipment shortages and staff shortages. We did not even have the basic PPE when it was needed. We asked already overworked and underpaid healthcare workers to face the dangers while ill-equipped and unprotected, and they did it. We are forever indebted to every single one of them.
One year later, we have unprecedented challenges, among which are waiting lists for elective procedures and life-saving red-flag surgeries. During the height of the third wave of the pandemic, trusts across the North were forced to cancel life-saving cancer surgeries for hundreds of patients. Tragically, we are now playing catch-up, but it may already be too late for some people. All the challenges that we face across the health and social care sector are intensified by our inability to plan because of the budgetary process. Planning requires confidence that there will be money to fulfil those plans. That is why we must have multi-year budgets. We must have confidence that we can fulfil the health and social care needs of our population over the long term and that we will have the funding to do that.
The health and social care sector faces many challenges. One of the longest-lasting and most consequential challenges is that of health inequalities. We live in a society where life expectancy and healthy living are largely determined by postcode. Prior to the onset of the pandemic, I started to look at the problem of oral health here in the North. The inequalities are immense and absolutely shocking. Across the North, particularly in our more deprived communities, large numbers of children are suffering needlessly from the largely preventable disease of tooth decay, with many requiring hospitalisation, a general anaesthetic and multiple extractions. The figures are shocking, with more than 70% of under-15s having tooth decay. In one year alone, more than 5,000 of our children required 23,000 teeth to be extracted at a cost of around £9 million to the healthcare budget. The truth is that we are operating under a strategy that is outdated and increasingly irrelevant. Yet, when the Department was asked to develop a new oral health strategy, it told us that the outdated strategy, which is not working, was enough. Oral health is just one example of where profound inequalities exist in our society today, but the important point is that those inequalities can and must be addressed once and for all.

Roy Beggs: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This debate will continue at 2.45 pm, after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Paula Bradley.
The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Alex Maskey: Before we commence Question Time, I wish to inform Members that I have received a request from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they make a statement to set out how the Executive will approach relaxations as the first step towards a wider recovery process. Being aware of the significant interest from MLAs, the general public and the media on that issue, I have agreed to allow the FM and the DFM to update the Assembly as soon as possible. Therefore, I have agreed, courtesy of the Minister of Finance, to interrupt the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill at 3.45 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Avian Influenza

Gerry Kelly: 1. Mr G Kelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on levels of avian influenza. (AQO 1671/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: Two cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N8 were confirmed on commercial poultry holdings in Northern Ireland in January 2021. The Chief Veterinary Officer confirmed the first case in Clough, County Antrim, on 6 January. The second case was confirmed near Lisburn on 11 January. Disease control zones were imposed around both premises to limit the spread of disease. The movement of poultry and captive birds, carcasses, eggs, used poultry litter and manure were restricted and required licences to be moved in or out of the zones. My Department worked closely with the industry, and, following the successful completion of disease-control activities and surveillance in the zones, those restrictions have now been lifted.
Those notifiable avian disease outbreaks in poultry are the first in Northern Ireland since 1998 and the first ever to involve a highly pathogenic strain of the virus. A further 16 suspected cases of notifiable avian influenza have been reported in Northern Ireland since 4 January. Suspected premises were restricted whilst a veterinary investigation was conducted at each site. Following testing at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, all those suspected cases were negated.
Since October 2020, eight positive cases of HPAI H5N8 have been confirmed in wild birds across six different locations in Northern Ireland.
The risk of a notifiable avian influenza incursion in poultry flocks in Northern Ireland is still at the highest that it has ever been, and the avian influenza prevention zone will remain in place until that risk reduces. Veterinary officials will keep those conditions under regular review in collaboration with industry stakeholders. The need for excellent biosecurity to prevent further incursions will continue to be highlighted by my Department as a crucial way to protect the national flock.

Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer up to now. Given what he reported, it looks like things do not come in ones, and the situation is serious. The Minister mentioned October and the number of cases that have been identified in different species since then. What level of cooperation is in place across Ireland to try to contain the situation in North/South terms?

Gordon Lyons: We are on the same island, so cooperation on the issue is important. I know, because I brought it through the Executive a few weeks ago, that there is a requirement to notify when cases of COVID-19 are found in animals. It has become a notifiable disease. At that time, it was my understanding that there is a process in place whereby, if suspected cases are discovered in either jurisdiction, the authorities north and south of the border can work together to do all that we can to stop further spread and make sure that the authorities, North and South, are aware. I am sure that a similar process is in place for this issue. We want to make sure that the sector is strong and remains strong. It is important to have procedures in place to deal with those issues when they arise. Of course, we hope that they will not.

William Humphrey: Minister, you mentioned risk in your response to the first question. With spring now hopefully having sprung and birds migrating on a much larger scale, do we run the risk of those migratory birds bringing in the disease from other jurisdictions? Are extra measures being put in place to deal with that?

Gordon Lyons: At different times of the year, there will be different implications. The Member is absolutely right to mention the movement of birds, because wild birds are suspected to be the cause of the outbreak in this case. It is the most rational explanation. We need to do everything that we can to stop that happening and take into consideration the time of the year and how birds move about. Additionally, we will take measures to prevent such outbreaks. As I said, avian influenza is a notifiable disease, and disease control zones were immediately put in place around the infected premises. The Department is also engaging with stakeholders to keep them informed of the developments and to amplify the message of enhanced biosecurity to keep those birds safe.

Alex Maskey: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Agri-food Industry: COVID-19 Support

Jonathan Buckley: 2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his Department's £25 million COVID-19 financial support package for the agri-food industry. (AQO 1672/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: The past year has presented many difficulties for the agriculture industry. I am pleased that my Department has been able to provide some financial support to offset the losses caused by market disturbance across a number of sectors impacted on by COVID-19. To date, the Agricultural Commodities (Coronavirus) (Income Support) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2020 has made payments of almost £19·2million to approximately 11,300 businesses in the beef, dairy, sheep and potato sectors. Work is ongoing to assess and process remaining claims from about 20 applicants.
My Department has also announced financial support worth £4·2 million for the pig and poultry sectors. Some £2·2 million has been allocated to pig producers impacted on when Cranswick Country Foods was temporarily closed for two weeks at the end of August, and £2 million has been allocated to poultry producers that were specifically affected by the downturn in the market for hatching eggs. New legislation will be required to enable my Department to make payments to pig and poultry farmers. I plan to bring that to the Assembly in the coming days to enable the schemes to open and farmers to receive their payments by the end of March.

Jonathan Buckley: I place on record my thanks to the Minister for his work since taking up post to support those in our farming community and to his predecessor, who rightly focused on and prioritised COVID-19 support for farmers impacted on by COVID-19.
Minister, you elaborated on this point, but perhaps you can go further in updating us on whether you have considered supporting the reduction in the price received for cull sows as a result of COVID-19?

Gordon Lyons: I echo the Member's comments, not just about the job that I have been doing but about the job that Minister Poots did.
As a result of that work, we have the most extensive support for agriculture anywhere in the UK or Ireland, and that is to be welcomed. It shows the commitment that we have to agriculture in Northern Ireland and that we recognise its importance and that we do everything that we can to support our agriculture industry.
Minister Poots and his officials have met industry stakeholders regularly and have met representatives from the pig sector to discuss their concerns regarding cull sow prices. My officials continue to monitor the impact of COVID-19 on the market and are reviewing evidence to determine the loss incurred. However, there are other factors impacting on the market, and I will consider the issue carefully.

Patsy McGlone: We have had numerous updates to the Committee regarding COVID support for Lough Neagh fishermen, the most recent of which was that it had been cleared by the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), and the Department of Finance had been consulted and had come back to give it the green light. Can the Minister provide an update on when those payments will be approved? It seems to be an interminable time since they were first mooted by the Department.

Gordon Lyons: This is an issue of concern, and I understand what the Member says about the length of time. I certainly hope that that can be progressed as soon as possible, but I do not have a definitive timescale for him. I recognise the work that he and many others have done on this and its importance. As soon as we can provide that information, we will.

Colm Gildernew: Minister, I appreciate that you have given some information on pigs and poultry. I welcome that, given the concentration of those sectors in south Tyrone. As well as the financial envelope, can you outline any additional information about the scheme and touch on organic milk producers and whether they are included in the hardship funds?

Gordon Lyons: Yes, absolutely. The organic milk scheme, in particular, is an issue that I have been involved in. I recognise the issues with it, the differential loss that has been suffered and the need to provide support. I hope that an announcement will be made soon so that we can get that support to where it is needed.

John Blair: What considerations have been given to providing Northern Ireland wool producers with urgent financial assistance? They too have seen a fall in revenue as a result of COVID-19 and will continue to see its effects as we move towards recovery.

Gordon Lyons: I am aware of the impact that COVID-19 has had on the global market for wool, although I am pleased to hear that wool markets have reopened and that local wool from the 2019 and 2020 clip is being marketed, albeit at a much reduced market price.
On 15 February, I met representatives of Ulster Wool, British Wool, the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the National Sheep Association for an update on the impact that COVID-19 has had on global wool markets and the consequences for local sheep farmers and Ulster Wool. Representatives of British Wool detailed the figures that they had on the financial impact that COVID-19 has had. Those figures are now being submitted in writing to my Department and are being carefully considered.
With markets for lamb remaining strong this year throughout the summer and autumn, the reduced wool price will have a relatively small impact on total profitability, but we want to help where we can. In the longer term, I intend to work closely with stakeholders from the sheep industry and Ulster Wool on recovery and to see what we can do to develop a strategy for sustainable wool production. Meetings have taken place with my officials, Invest NI and industry stakeholders who use wool as part of their business to discuss options for a long-term strategy to increase wool utilisation.

Rosemary Barton: Minister, thank you for your answers so far. As you will be aware, the agricultural shows, which have been used to showcase much of our good agricultural produce in Northern Ireland, had to be cancelled last year and therefore did not have the opportunity to collect gate receipts that are used to pay for various running expenses during the year. Minister, would you have discussions with members of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society with a view to giving them some financial support?

Gordon Lyons: I am more than happy to have those meetings and conversations. I agree with the Member: our agricultural shows are really important, not just for the agricultural community but for the wider rural community. I am sure that many urban dwellers have also experienced and enjoyed what our agricultural shows have to offer. I fully recognise the difficulties that were caused as a result of COVID last year, and unfortunately that is also impacting on their ability to plan for this year too. That is a concern for me, and I am more than happy to look at ways in which we, as a Department, can offer our support. If a meeting would help to facilitate that, I will, of course, find time for it.

Illegal Dumping

William Humphrey: 3. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what progress is being made on addressing illegal dumping. (AQO 1673/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: Responsibility for dealing with illegal dumping is shared between local councils, which deal with low-level waste offences, and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), which deals with large-scale waste criminality and hazardous waste. For large-scale, serious and/or organised waste offending, my officials continue to work locally and nationally with a range of law enforcement agencies, Departments and district councils to gather evidence, detect offenders and, where possible, report such criminality to the Public Prosecution Service.
My officials also continue to develop inter-agency working on the fly-tipping protocol, which is in the process of being agreed with local councils. That will facilitate quick and efficient responses to smaller cases of reported illegal dumping; consolidate responsibilities for the NIEA and Councils; and maximise the effectiveness of our collaborative efforts to deal with illegal dumping.
Throughout the last year, my Department has been proactive in delivering a multimedia communications strategy that is aimed at combating illegal dumping, fly-tipping and littering. That was delivered via radio, social media and a flyer to 800,000 households in Northern Ireland, and it has led to increased awareness of the impact of illegal dumping amongst the general public, generating more reports for my officers to investigate and more opportunities to target offenders.

William Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that dumping across Northern Ireland is happening on an industrial scale. Last year, there was dumping on an industrial scale on the Crumlin Road at Edenderry Industrial Estate, which led to my having to contact the Environment Agency and Belfast City Council. Information from the Environment Agency was slow to come — the response to requests for new information was nil — and Belfast City Council was slow, which was hugely frustrating for the people living beside the site, having to deal with rats, flies and all sorts of noxious smells. Will the Minister assure me, the House and the people of Northern Ireland that he is working more collaboratively with local government, particularly in the city of Belfast, to ensure that the issue is addressed once and for all across government, both regional and local?

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for raising that issue, because it impacts so much on the people that we represent. In recent days and weeks, I have had a number of complaints on such issues. It is not just the fact that illegal dumping is unsightly; it is all the other issues that come with that. It is right that we do all that we can to target that. My officials have been working closely with district councils to progress powers for the Environment Agency and for council officials. The agreed position is that the NIEA is responsible for the investigation of large-scale waste criminality and the removal of hazardous wastes, such as asbestos, and other fly-tipped waste that is over 20 cubic metres in volume. District councils take responsibility for deposits that are under 20 cubic metres, which might be more commonly understood as fly-tipping and the casual dumping of household waste by individuals. While there are different responsibilities between councils and the NIEA, it is absolutely right that there is collaboration; it should never be a case of passing the buck. Getting the job done so that we can deliver for the people whom we represent is the priority.

Declan McAleer: I am sure that all Members will agree that illegal dumping and waste is the scourge of the countryside, and I commend the councils and local communities that have taken control of our roads and byways and have been engaged in litter picking, particularly in the last year, during the lockdown.
The Minister will be familiar with the fact that illegal waste and dumping knows no borders or boundaries. Has he been engaged with his counterparts in the South of Ireland to try to take measures to tackle it?

Gordon Lyons: The Member will be aware that I have been in office for only a short time, so I have not had that opportunity to engage on the issue that he raises, but if there is a cross-border element to waste, it is important that the authorities on both sides of the border work together to try to deal with it. So, although I have had not had that direct engagement, it is absolutely the right thing that it happens where necessary.

Pat Catney: What recent analysis has your Department done of the materials that are being illegally dumped?

Gordon Lyons: I think that the Member is asking what general analysis has been carried out on dumping. Unfortunately, I do not have that information here with me today, but I will be more than happy to see what, if any, analysis the Department has carried out on types of waste or where it originated from. I am sorry that I do not have further detail for the Member, but if he has a more specific query that he wants to bring to the attention of my Department, I will be more than happy to look at that and to furnish him with any information that we have.

Alan Chambers: There has been a substantial amount of illegal dumping in the countryside since lockdown. Frequently, if the owner of the land cannot be identified, there is often an issue between the councils and the Environment Agency about who should be responsible for its removal, to such an extent that the illegally dumped material is never removed. I know that, in an earlier answer, you referred to the fact that there should be no buck-passing, but, in such cases, who does the final responsibility actually lie with?

Gordon Lyons: As I outlined, that depends on the type and nature of the waste and the dumping that has occurred. It is so frustrating for individuals and for us, as elected representatives, and I think that that is why he is raising it. We have examples in our constituencies, and, at times, there can be disagreements about who is responsible and who needs to come forward to deal with it. I hope that we can get that clarification and that people take responsibility in their own areas.
The most important thing is that the people who are doing it take responsibility, and, where we are able to find out who has been practising and partaking in that illegal behaviour, that they are punished as they should be. The Member will be aware that the legislation has provision for fines of up to £50,000 and a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. It is very important that the responsibility, first and foremost, lies with the people who are involved in dumping when they should not be.

Waste Water: Coronavirus Monitoring

Paula Bradshaw: 5. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the monitoring of waste water containing the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. (AQO 1675/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: My officials have been working with DEFRA, other devolved Administrations and the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) to inform the development of a Northern Ireland programme for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus surveillance in waste water. In November 2020, DAERA agreed to co-fund a research project with SFI to establish that waste water surveillance and reporting. In Northern Ireland, a team at Queen's University Belfast is leading that work, with collaborative partners in University College Dublin. They commenced their research in December 2020, with an initial scope of work that included sampling two waste water treatment sites in Northern Ireland, with plans to extend to a further six sites: eight sites in total. DAERA agreed a funding extension of the initial research grant award in January, which will enable the capability being established through the programme to process a greater number of samples in the coming months.
DAERA officials are engaging with their counterparts in the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency and the Department for Infrastructure to develop an effective cross-departmental approach to long-term waste water surveillance.

Paula Bradshaw: Thank you very much, Minister. That is very helpful. I am pleased to hear that Queen's University in my constituency is involved in this and that there will be cross-departmental working. To what degree will the public be made aware of any of the findings of the research?

Gordon Lyons: The Member will be aware that we are still at the early stages of the research. We have no data or results to share yet. It is right that the research should be publicised and made available to the general public so that they can see the benefits of doing this.
Perhaps the Member is referring specifically to those who will be affected when this is rolled out. Of course, it is right that, if the work is being done and issues are detected, the whole point will be to tell the local public so that they can take precautions as necessary.

Roy Beggs: Minister, you referred to ongoing monitoring. Has that activity and research determined that there is a need for additional protection for staff who work in waste water treatment works, or is there a need for additional treatment to protect the public against any resulting risks?

Gordon Lyons: There is no doubt that the staff involved in this take all proper precautions. They always will, due to the nature of the work that they do. I am not aware of any particular impact on the public or extra treatment that might need to be carried out. If there is, I am more than happy to furnish the Member with that information. It is right that we highlight the importance of the issue. It is innovative and very positive to see this collaboration as we try to do more to deal with the pandemic.

Animal Welfare

Maurice Bradley: 6. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what resources are available to local councils to address animal welfare concerns. (AQO 1676/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: My Department fully funds the companion animal welfare service, which is delivered by councils. Some £1·25 million has been allocated to the delivery of the service from April 2020 to March 2021. As part of the service, councils take a range of actions to address animal welfare concerns in companion animals. For example, they provide advice, issue improvement notices, take animals in need into their possession and initiate prosecutions where appropriate.

Maurice Bradley: Thank you very much for your answer, Minister. My office has been contacted by a number of constituents about puppy smuggling. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle puppy smuggling? The problem is increasing across Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for raising the issue. I have also noticed an increase in the number of people who are contacting me about the matter. It is an issue of growing concern.
My Department has established a multi-agency forum with representatives from the councils, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Harbour Police and departmental portal staff. The forum aims to ensure that the illegal breeding and movement of dogs and pups is addressed on a more joined-up basis. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is actively investigating individuals involved in illegal movements and has been involved in reactive seizures of animals.
My Department is also raising awareness of the matter through its online presence. Messaging includes general advice on how to spot an illegal puppy farm, putting a stop to illegal puppy farming and who to contact on suspicion of a puppy farm.

Rachel Woods: Mr Bradley must have seen my questions on puppy smuggling. The Minister mentioned the multi-agency forum and its aims. What engagement has there been to stop illegal cross-border puppy smuggling, given that we do not have Lucy's law in place in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Buckley: Mr Newton is bringing it in.

Gordon Lyons: Someone behind me has just said that Robin Newton is bringing that in. I am committed to ensuring that the welfare of pets, including pups and kittens, in Northern Ireland remains protected. I am aware that changes to the legislation in England mean that pups and kittens cannot be sold to third-party dealers. There is considerable merit in having similar protections for pups and kittens that are sold in Northern Ireland. I will support legislation on that issue.

Alex Maskey: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mullaghglass Landfill: Smell

Robbie Butler: T1. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the work being undertaken by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the owner of Mullaghglass landfill to eliminate the smells that emanate from that site, something about which he has written to him and to a number of elected representatives in the Lagan Valley area. (AQT 1061/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: I recognise that there is huge concern in the wider west Belfast/Lisburn area about this. People are contacting me via not only the Department but my constituency office and, in various ways, online. I recognise how important an issue it is, and I am aware of the large number of representations that elected representatives such as Mr Butler have made. There are a number of potential odour sources in the area, including Mullaghglass landfill, which is regulated by the NIEA, and there may be others. The NIEA has been working with the local council's environmental health officers to investigate residents' complaints and, through undertaking a number of odour checks, they have confirmed the continuing presence of odours in the areas surrounding Mullaghglass landfill site. I have instructed NIEA staff to work with the local councils to increase their efforts to ensure that all regulated sites have in place all necessary measures to reduce the off-site odours that are impacting on the wider community.

Robbie Butler: I am thinking of landfill sites in the wider context — not just Mullaghglass — and their environmental impact. What is being done to protect our environment and modernise how we deal with such waste?

Gordon Lyons: It is a priority for us to ensure that we move away as much as possible from putting our waste into landfill. We want to see an increase in recycling, albeit that we have done a good job on that over the past number of years here in Northern Ireland. We are doing well in our recycling take-up. However, we also need to look at the various technologies that come online to deal with the issue. It is important to take a holistic approach.

Ministerial Decisions: Executive Agreement

Caoimhe Archibald: T2. Dr Archibald asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that his instruction to DAERA officials last Friday was, under the terms of the ministerial code, both cross-cutting and controversial, whether he accepts that only the Executive can take such a decision. (AQT 1062/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: I have received advice on the issue. There is the opinion that issues that are cross-cutting in this way, as the Member described, should come to the Executive. It is my opinion that DAERA had been given the responsibility for the issue, but I know that others take a different view. However, if it is the case that issues relating to the protocol need to come to the Executive, many other things will require the support of the Executive before my Department can proceed to carry them out.

Caoimhe Archibald: I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister said that he was putting a halt to the construction of facilities. Those contracts were awarded by his Department. Is he seriously interfering in contracts and procurement to score political points?

Gordon Lyons: I think that it is interesting that, in all the questions that I have received from Members on the other side of the House, they have never even prefaced their comments with any concern about the people of Northern Ireland. They have never expressed any concern about the damage that the protocol is having on people in Northern Ireland. They have never even acknowledged concerns that there may issues in getting goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. They do not acknowledge that we do far more trade with Great Britain than we do with anywhere else. It is absolutely my concern also that public money is being spent properly, and I think that it is entirely appropriate that, as discussions are ongoing with the Joint Committee and as a result of the uncertainty that is out there in front of us, we are not racing ahead in a way that would be considered unreasonable and inappropriate.

Garden Centres: Reopening Arrangements

Robin Newton: T3. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he is supportive of garden centres reopening in a safe and appropriate way, given the health benefits to the public of working in their garden and, indeed, the need for the businesses to be open at this time owing to their very limited window of business activity. (AQT 1063/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: I agree with the Member for a number of reasons. We can look across to other parts of the UK where garden centres are completely open, and I think that even to have opened garden centres on a click-and-collect basis would have been good. It would support businesses that obviously need to have the plants and other materials sold because of the planting season and the nature that we find ourselves in at the minute. These places are normally in open spaces, where people can space out as they queue to pick up whatever they have ordered online or by telephone. While we have a stay-at-home message, it is entirely appropriate that we try to help people to stay at home as much as possible, and that can be via making sure that they can be out in their gardens enjoying them. For all those reasons, yes, I agree that we should find a way to allow them to be open.

Robin Newton: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you will recognise, and, indeed, it is well established, that working in the garden can make a very positive contribution to the health of individuals, their mental health in particular. Minister, have you discussed this matter with the Minister of Health?

Gordon Lyons: The Minister for the Economy brought a paper to the Executive, and that included the possibility of opening garden centres. The Executive did not agree to open them on a click-and-collect basis. I argued, at that time, that I thought that it would have been appropriate for garden centres to open, because of the impacts that it could have not only on the businesses themselves but on the health and mental health of all our constituents. Subsequently, I have also put that in writing to the Minister of Health to outline the reasons why I believe that it should be allowed. I take very seriously our responsibilities as an Executive to deal with the pandemic and to try to keep the R number under 1, but it is our responsibility and our duty to look at these issues as a whole; to look at the impact on COVID, on health and mental health and on businesses and the economy. Taking all those things in the round, I think that it would be appropriate to allow click and collect for that, and I will continue to advocate for that.

Protocol Port Checks: Changes

Liz Kimmins: T4. Ms Kimmins asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after stating that she finds it interesting that the Minister and his colleagues are now interested in the impact on the people in the North, given that they were not so interested in that impact when they were pushing through a hard Brexit, whether he can confirm her understanding that there have been no changes to the arrangements at the port since last Friday. (AQT 1064/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: It is the case that the work on the checks in regard to the protocol continues.

Liz Kimmins: Can the Minister, therefore, confirm that his decision was based on advice from departmental officials?

Gordon Lyons: When I made the decision last week, I based it on a number of factors that came to me from within the Department. I hope that the Member has had the opportunity to listen to the explanation that I gave in the Assembly yesterday. There are a number of reasons that I took the decision that I took. One, of course, was the responsibilities that I have under section 46 of the Internal Market Act, which requires me to have a special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and customs territory and for the free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In addition, there are legal uncertainties and practical barriers to some of the things that we might be expected to do. After taking all of that into account, that is why I took the decision that I did.

Protocol: Risks to Retailers

Trevor Clarke: T5. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the risks that were identified at a meeting that his predecessor held with some retailers in January. (AQT 1065/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for raising that issue. It is important that we highlight what was said at the meeting. Its minutes are now public. A number of concerns were expressed about rules not changing for export health certificates. There were concerns over food service, hospitality, and the disruption to supply to schools, hospitals and prisons. Issues were raised about the official control regulations (OCR). It was stated that there is a need for clarity at the end of the easement period; otherwise, there will be a sudden and rapid reduction in range. There was also a difficulty with seeing how frozen and fresh food could comply. That is what took place, and that is what was said to Minister Poots at the meeting. He then accurately reflected what was in the minutes, after which other parties accused him of scaremongering on steroids. They were clearly wrong, and they owe Minister Poots an apology.

Trevor Clarke: You said what I wanted you to say in your answer. You highlighted the fact that the Members opposite and some people in the media criticised Minister Poots. Going beyond Members, will you therefore call on the media to apologise for some of their commentary on Minister Poots's assertions at that time?

Gordon Lyons: Absolutely. Everybody who called into question the accuracy of his comments needs to reflect on the fact that what they said has now been refuted very clearly. It is appropriate that people recognise the accuracy of what Minister Poots said at that time. Of course, a lot of people out there do not want to recognise that there will be issues. Instead, they want to put their head in the sand and think that a simple tinkering with the protocol is all that is needed. We face fundamental questions, concerns and challenges, and we need to wake up to them.

Protocol: Full Implications for NI

Joanne Bunting: T6. Ms Bunting asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that we all know the saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see", which is applicable to some of the warnings that have been issued in relation to the protocol and goods in the internal market, to spell out the full implications for Northern Ireland of the rigorous implementation of the protocol. (AQT 1066/17-22)

Gordon Lyons: I apologise to the Member, but I have only two minutes in which to answer that question. It will not be possible for me in that time to express the impact that it will have on Northern Ireland.
Where should I start? Perhaps with the red tape and the additional bureaucracy that it will cause. Perhaps I should mention the reduction in choice that there could be for consumers. Perhaps I should touch on the issues that hauliers will have and on the issues that have already presented themselves and will only get worse. We also have to take into consideration the barriers that will be placed on the UK internal market and all the difficulties that will come from that. We have to think of the businesses that say that they feel that they will not be able to trade with Northern Ireland because of the extra cost and complexity involved. We have restrictions on the livestock that can come into and go out of Northern Ireland. What about the difficulties in bringing guide dogs in to be trained and the impact that that will have on our citizens? In addition, we have seen issues with the importation of machinery.
That is only a short summary of the issues that we face. It is worse when you take them as a whole. That is why it is so, so, so important that we get an alternative to the protocol. No amount of tinkering will make it work. It needs to go.

Joanne Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In light of that, what discussions has he had with the DEFRA Secretary of State to highlight and reinforce that this cannot continue for Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons: In my time in office, I have sent a number of letters to the Secretary of State outlining my concerns. I actually had a phone call with him last night. I highlighted the impacts that the protocol is having on Northern Ireland, the impacts that the end of the grace periods will have, and the horrendous situation that we will be in if OCR charging comes in. The Secretary of State represents a Cornish constituency. I asked him, "How would you feel if a border had been put in place between Cornwall and Devon or between Cornwall and the rest of the UK? How would you feel about needing common health entry certificates if you wanted to get produce into Cornwall? How would you feel about the extra paperwork? How would you feel if delivery companies said that they were not delivering to Cornwall?".
Those are the issues and concerns that people in Northern Ireland face. We are part of the United Kingdom, and it is intolerable that we face these problems. It would be intolerable for the Secretary of State to face them as well. That is why action needs to be taken

Alex Maskey: Time is up. Thank you for that. Members, please take your ease for a moment or two.

Assembly Business

Trevor Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 19(5) relates to questions being answered in a timely manner. I have been tabling questions to the Health Minister since September of last year, many of which have related to Muckamore. The Muckamore issues and investigations are well rehearsed. I have asked questions about the fact that some of the cameras have not been working and about the complaints that some of the families have submitted. It is unreasonable that, after five months, those questions remain unanswered. Indeed, I tabled a subsequent question to ask when they would be answered and have failed to get an answer to that as well.
Mr Speaker, through your office, will you liaise with the Minister's Department to get answers to those questions, please?

Alex Maskey: The Member is aware that I have very limited authority to address the matter of unanswered questions. However, I am content to allow Members to raise those matters and have them put on the record by way of points of order. I take every opportunity that I can to encourage the Executive to facilitate and respect the scrutiny role of the Assembly and its Members. There are other measures that you should consider: everything from submitting topical questions or questions for oral answer, to tabling a motion, to taking the matter to the Committee on Procedures. As I said, I have limited authority, as the Member is well aware, but it is important to put it on the record. I support your putting your doing so.
(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate resumed on motion:
That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 17/17-22] be agreed. — [Mr Murphy (The Minister of Finance).]

Christopher Stalford: The first Member on my speaking list is the Chair of the Communities Committee, Ms Paula —

Paula Bradley: Bradley.

Christopher Stalford: — Bradley. It was gone. Sorry, Paula
[Laughter.]

Paula Bradley: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I was that forgettable
[Laughter.]
I will never speak to you again.
Almost a year ago in the House, I assured the Minister of Finance that the Committee for Communities would work closely with the Department to achieve all that it could, whatever its budget allocation. However, now that we have had two briefing sessions with officials, on 28 January and 4 February, it is not an overstatement to say that the Committee is dismayed at the allocations for Communities in the draft Budget for 2021-22; in fact, in some cases, the current allocations are so low when compared with the bids that the Committee wondered whether it was the reality or just a worst-case scenario being presented to it to garner support. Sadly, as the briefing continued, it became clear that it was the reality, and the Committee is fully supportive of the Minister as she continues to lobby for additional funding to support the most vulnerable in our society. Any flexibility from Treasury to carry over the significant amount of money that came from it at the end of last year will have no trouble finding a home in Communities. It is worth highlighting that the Assembly's Research and Information Service recently drew our attention to the fact that non-ring-fenced resource DEL for Communities has decreased by over £33 million between 2016-17 and 2020-21; in fact, according to the presentation, over that time, Communities is the only Department to have seen such a total reduction in non-ring-fenced resource DEL.
Before I go into detail, I will take the opportunity to comment on the Budget process. The Communities Committee, like others, wishes to express its dissatisfaction with the nature of the 2020-21 Budget process. Granted there were delays due to the Chancellor's spending review being late, but the Executive also failed to consider the draft Budget in a timely manner and so lost the Committees valuable scrutiny time and opportunity. The Committee understands that the impact of COVID-19 has meant that the plan to provide a full multi-year Budget has had to be reconsidered, so here we are again facing a single-year Budget that makes planning for services and programmes so much more difficult and therefore the scrutiny role of the Committee equally difficult. With only a one-year Budget, it is difficult to align the Budget beyond short-term priorities. However, for COVID recovery, we really need to align spend to medium-term strategic recovery priorities as well.
I will move on to highlight the Committee's concern at the overall draft Budget position for 2021-22 before going into some of the key details for Communities. Overall, the proposed budget of £824 million is effectively £1·5 million less than the budget for 2020-21. As a clear example of the pressures, a basic bid for £18 million for baseline funding for pay and inflationary pressures has not been met. Members expressed significant concern that the overall funding in the draft Budget for Communities to deliver on its NDNA commitments falls significantly short across all areas. Overall, the Department's bids for £149·1 million of COVID-19 funding have not been met. Those bids were for a range of crucial activities help to ease the economic impacts of COVID-19 and support recovery.
At last week's meeting, the Committee was somewhat heartened to hear that, in producing the draft Budget, the Executive had agreed to retain some COVID funding to allow Departments time to refine their pressures. Despite that, the Committee believes that the draft Budget allocation will have huge detrimental impacts on welfare benefit delivery, employment support, support for homelessness, Supporting People, the arts, heritage and sport sectors, community support programmes and support for councils.
The Department bid for almost £330 million of net capital and was allocated almost £225 million. That represents an increase of over £10 million on last year's allocation and will, at least, allow the Department to meet its statutory obligations. The Committee asked officials the hard questions about what efficiencies could be made going forward and was advised that an urgent exercise was being done to look at what could be stopped, paused or done differently in all areas. With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that any creative efficiencies that the Department can come up will be sufficient to meet the drastic shortfall in funding for Communities.
The Committee's concern is being compounded by the continued uncertainty about the Shared Prosperity Fund. We heard at our last meeting that Whitehall's engagement and information on that fund has been severely lacking and there has been a failure to engage on the £220 million pilot programme that was promised in the spending review.
I will take a few minutes to highlight some of the Committee's concerns about the resource allocations for Communities. It is hard to know where to start because there is so much need in our communities, even before COVID.
The Committee acknowledges the welcome COVID funding of over £271 million received by the Department during 2020-21, with over £85 million of that allocated to councils. The Committee has scrutinised closely the COVID funding programmes for councils, charities, sports and the arts over the past year, so members were shocked to learn that the draft Budget meant that the Department was starting 2021-22 with zero for COVID-specific schemes and that many bids had not been met for those schemes at this point.
On welfare delivery, at the last count, the universal credit caseload had increased by almost 130% during the past 10 months and is expected to increase further as the furlough scheme ends, yet a bid for £149 million of COVID funding has not been met in the draft Budget. That will have a significant impact on the plans to recruit 900 additional staff to pay working-age benefits. Never mind the five-week wait: we could soon be looking at a six- or seven-week wait for people who are receiving their first claims for universal credit. Many more families could be left without proper advice as no recurring funding is provided in the draft Budget for independent advice work to support welfare reform change. The Committee was met with frustration from organisations as money from discretionary support schemes was handed back unspent. It consistently asked the Department to consider redirecting money where the Budget process allowed.
The Committee has highlighted on a number of occasions the delays to labour market interventions, particularly the delay to the Job Start scheme for young people. It has expressed concern that Northern Ireland is well behind Great Britain in introducing such a scheme, and, as there is no funding for labour market interventions in the draft Budget, that causes huge uncertainty. The Committee is equally concerned about the knock-on effects on the Department's annually managed expenditure spend, as it will not be able to help people to move into work and to reduce their dependence on benefit in the next financial year.
The Committee has been consistently concerned by the inadequate funding for the Supporting People programme, which supports people to live independently in our community. Although it remains a protected area in the Budget, there has been no real-terms increase in recent years, which, of course, means a substantial decrease in real terms.
On 'New Decade, New Approach' — where do I even begin on 'New Decade, New Approach'? — the Department made bids totalling £139 million, and bids totalling £96 million were not met. Only the bid for existing welfare mitigations has been met in the draft Budget. How will any new welfare mitigations be delivered? Where is the money to support amending the special rules for terminal illness and the removal of the welfare reform two-child policy?
At its meeting on 18 February, the Committee considered the three elements of the Department's proposals on welfare mitigations work. There will soon be a Bill, which will go through by accelerated passage, to provide for the extension of the social sector size criteria mitigation scheme; a statutory rule that will extend the remaining welfare mitigation schemes; and two further statutory rules that will amend the existing mitigation schemes by closing the loopholes in those schemes.
Accelerated passage was agreed by the Executive over a year ago as the end of March 2020 was fast approaching. March 2021 is now upon us. Over the past year, the Committee repeatedly asked the Department to engage with stakeholders and the Committee on the proposed legislation and the review of welfare mitigations. Yet as recently as last week's meeting, it was still not possible for the Committee to be given a definitive list of the organisations with which the Department intends to engage.
Despite being exceptionally busy with the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill, the Committee made time to hold its own informal stakeholder event on 26 January to discuss the review of welfare mitigations, universal credit and the terminal illness rules. Members are very concerned about the pace of action on those issues and their impact on vulnerable people and families.
Prior to Christmas, the Committee was pleased to hear from the Minister about long-awaited plans to reform the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, the bid for £3·4 million for housing transformation was not met. That impacts on the ability to bring about the Housing Executive's revitalisation programme.
Bids for strategies for the Irish language, Ulster Scots, disability, gender equality, sexual orientation and anti-poverty were also not met. What sort of signal does that send to those groups waiting for a strategy and action in those important areas?
I will move to capital allocations. As I stated, the Department's capital bid is in a somewhat better position as almost £330 million of net capital allocation represents a £10·7 million increase when compared with the Department's 2020-21 allocation. The Committee is reassured that that allocation will allow the Department to meet its statutory obligations, such as housing disabled adaptations and renovation grants, and its social housebuilding target of 1,900 units in 2022.
The Committee fully supports the aims for any additional funding for use in prioritised projects in regeneration, housing, culture, the arts, sports, libraries and other sectors, although I suspect that it will be stretched very thinly, judging by the many necessary projects.
The Committee is pleased to see £38·8 million of financial transactions capital in the draft budget to support the co-ownership housing scheme in 2021-22. The Committee continues to keep a watching brief on the regional stadia and subregional stadia programmes, and was told at its meeting this week that the current cost estimate for Casement Park is now £112 million. The allocation of public funding remains at £62·5 million, with additional committed GAA partnership funding of £15 million. That is still subject to change depending on the conclusion of all matters associated with the planning application. The Committee is concerned that there will be similar cost increases for subregional stadia as there are no final plans for that either.
The Committee is concerned at the impacts that the draft budget will have on section 75 categories. It will impact on young people in particular, given that there will be limitations on labour market interventions. It is likely to impact on people with a disability, who will now be even further from the labour market. It will impact on people with dependants, as households on benefits such as universal credit are likely to experience delays in payments. The lack of funding for the advice sector will also impact on people most in need of financial support.
However, the Committee was somewhat reassured by confirmation at last week's meeting that the Minister has given an assurance that those services will continue next year as an essential element of the Department's budget. The Committee therefore waits, with some unease, on the outcome of the Department’s draft budget equality impact assessment public consultation, which closed only last week.
I will finish by reiterating what I said in a previous Budget speech last October, because it warrants restating: we should not show a lack of ambition in our planning. Regrettably, however, our ambition for our population continues to be tempered by our finances and the ongoing COVID crisis. Thankfully, the Programme for Government draft outcomes framework is now out for consultation, because, without a Programme for Government, we will not be able to scrutinise properly the link between budget bids and allocations and outcomes.
Without that, we stand accused of reacting, rather than planning, and of leaving the most vulnerable in our communities without access to the support, advice and basic financial assistance that they need.

Caoimhe Archibald: As I have said in previous Budget-related debates over the past year, we are in very strange budgetary times, which has had an impact on the Department for the Economy’s budgeting.
The Committee was briefed by departmental officials at its meeting on 10 February 2021 on the Department’s allocation in the draft 2021-22 Budget. As I indicated in yesterday’s debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account, over the past year, the Committee has engaged regularly with officials on budgeting in relation to COVID and EU exit. The Department has seen vast budget inflows and outflows, making scrutiny extremely difficult for the Committee.
The Committee registered some concern that the Department’s modelling for COVID response schemes has lacked accuracy, leading to considerable underspends on early schemes, including over £50 million being returned to the centre last year. The Committee appreciates the greater flexibility to move funds between COVID relief efforts, which was announced by the Finance Minister. However, the Department for the Economy has continued to make significant returns to the centre as well as making significant bids for urgent in-year funding.
The Committee welcomes the Minister for the Economy’s publication of an economic recovery action plan, which draws heavily on the Committee’s micro-inquiries into energy, skills and rebuilding the economy. The Committee's intention in undertaking those inquiries was to inform the Department’s development of policy, and it is always gratifying to see the Committee’s work featuring so prominently in such a major piece of departmental policy. As I highlighted yesterday, the economic recovery action plan requires considerable in-year funding beyond the draft Budget allocation of almost £300 million. I urge the Economy Minister to engage with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues to ensure that that necessary funding is forthcoming.
I turn to the draft Budget for 2021-22. It is timely that I do that and that I indicate the unsatisfactory nature of the Budget process from the perspective of Committee scrutiny. Although the Committee has seen the high-level funding allocations, members would greatly appreciate having much greater granularity in the detail that is provided to the Committee, down, say, to the level of £1 million and above.
The Department’s non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline remains at £805·4 million for 2021-22, despite the significant pressures placed on its budget because of COVID and Brexit. The Department has indicated that it has already made substantial advance bids for funding in the 2021-22 financial year. However, the Committee has expressed some concerns about that kind of budgeting.
The Department has been allocated a further £15·8 million of non-baseline funding for EU exit, EU match funding and its share of the Executive’s change in A-level policy funding. In addition, the Department has been allocated £12·2 million for operating the protocol. The Committee noted those funds and has requested that the Department provide details on how the protocol-related funding will be spent.
The non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline budget will be allocated across seven business areas. Committee members expressed concern that the allocations for economic and business development and for InterTradeIreland were static, considering the role of those business areas in providing funding and other support to businesses as a result of COVID and EU exit. Officials confirmed that they had anticipated that the Department’s advance bids for funds in 2021-22 would allow additional resources to be applied in those business areas to supplement the baseline budgets. Officials highlighted that the Department would face £17·8 million of unfunded inescapable resource pressures. In addition, existing COVID relief schemes will mean an unfunded pressure of £31·7 million in 2021-22. Those deficits do not address further requirements to provide support to businesses and other stakeholder groups as a result of COVID and EU exit.
Committee members are concerned that so many vital streams of work do not yet have identified funding streams. The Department’s dependence on additional funding allocations from the Executive and the Treasury does not represent good budgeting. The Department has made an advance bid for £147 million for COVID relief in 2021-22 to cover a high street voucher scheme and a holiday-at-home voucher scheme.
Those schemes are key to the Department's plan to help the economy to recover by stimulating spending. Again, members are concerned about whether funding will be forthcoming and whether those schemes will provide value for money as part of an economic stimulus package.
Advance bids of £167 million for economic recovery funding in 2021-22 were made in October 2020. The Department acknowledged the difficulties around timing with respect to recovery spending; applying funds too early risks their being wasted or underspent, while applying them too late risks their being ineffective or coming too late to support business recovery.
Skills development will be a vital part of building recovery. The Committee has undertaken considerable work on that. The Committee, therefore, supports the Department in its belief that skills will be key to economic recovery and greater prosperity going forward. Members, again, expressed concern when officials highlighted that the Department would require £460 million of additional funding to bring spending back to 2010-11 levels in real terms.
To that end, the Committee has written to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to highlight the need for investment in skills and to advocate that the Executive look favourably on skills-related bids that the Department makes going forward. Similarly, the Committee has written to the Economy Minister to urge her to prepare the necessary bids for submission to the Executive once additional funds have been identified.
The Department indicated that its draft capital allocation of £89·8 million represents 70% of its capital spending plans. However, officials suggested that they were broadly content with that allocation and, again, believe that they will be able to make successful bids for additional funding in-year. The Committee welcomed the allocations for aspects of New Decade, New Approach and city deals and will continue to monitor progress on those commitments.
The Committee is aware of the heavy toll that pressurised working on COVID relief has taken on departmental staff, which is exacerbated by the number of vacancies in the Department. The Committee is concerned that many aspects of the Department's work in key COVID and EU exit response areas are unfunded going into the new financial year, as well as the Department's reliance on advance bids for funding being met in-year. The issues that have been highlighted around the deficit in funding for skills have the potential to derail any economic recovery or development if they are not addressed. With the demands on the Executive's funding, the Committee worries that the Department's needs will not be met.
I will now make some remarks as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. Yesterday, as part of my contribution, I reflected my view that groups of businesses and workers still need specific support packages with the funding that is available to spend before the end of the financial year. I will not rehearse all that, other than to say that it is my strong view that, having responsibility for businesses, the Economy Minister, in particular, must look at flexibilities that could be introduced in existing schemes to provide that much-needed support.
As we look forward to the incoming financial year, we know that this is a difficult Budget and that there are constraints on what the Executive would like to do to deliver on the type of recovery that we want and need. That, of course, is not helped by a single-year Budget and the resulting inability to plan spending over the next few years. It is also exacerbated by the way in which funding for COVID support has come to the Executive over the past year — a bit here and a bit there — making it impossible to plan properly how to spend it. It looks like that for the incoming year, too.
The Budget for the forthcoming financial year is still in draft form. Tomorrow, the British Chancellor will announce further allocations. Those allocations will be welcome. However, they show the lack of strategic thinking from the British Government last November, when it was clear that we faced a second wave of restrictions. They have been reactive, rather than proactive, during this crisis. One has only to look at the furlough scheme, which was mooted to cease at the end of October and, subject to a last-minute reprieve, was extended until the end of January and then to the end of April. Hopefully, a further extension will now be forthcoming. EU states, like France, gave certainty months ago that their job support schemes would continue into next year. That would give businesses the confidence to be able to plan going forward. Hopefully, we will see a longer-term stimulus coming from the British Government, because, let us be clear: that is exactly what is needed to reboot the economy when it is safe to reopen.
That brings me to the publication, last week, of the Economy Minister's economic recovery action plan. It was good to see a plan for economic recovery. I do not think that any of us would disagree with the plan's priority areas of skills, a greener economy, trade and investment.
It was a missed opportunity, however, to set out an Executive vision of an overarching strategy for economic recovery that had cross-departmental buy-in and that clearly set out the response to the new trading arrangements post-Brexit. It is really important that we look to those new trading arrangements and deal with the difficulties that have resulted from implementing a major change in trading. We must politically and diplomatically work with businesses to do that and then support them to respond to the new reality and the opportunities that it presents, including the reorientation of supply chains locally and across the island. We can rebuild and strengthen the all-island economy through cooperation that benefits North and South.
It was disappointing that the economic recovery action plan did not include the New Decade, New Approach commitments on workers' rights. We have heard many times in the Chamber, and in commentary over the past year, about the need to recognise our essential workers. Upholding and strengthening their rights, as was agreed by all parties before the restoration of the institutions, will send out a strong signal. I know that the Economy Minister has previously spoken about wanting to have a skills fund and an economic recovery fund. I wonder whether the Finance Minister in his response can reflect on any discussions that he has had with the Economy Minister about funding her economic recovery plan.
Going forward, the Committee wants attention to be paid to particular areas to enable economic recovery, and there is likely broad support for that. One such area is the need to support our young people who have been badly hit by the pandemic. Young people are more likely to have been furloughed. Recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) statistics show that there are 26,000 more unemployed 16- to 24-year-olds than at the same time last year. We therefore need to ensure that there is a strategy to provide opportunities for young people, and it is an area in which there is a need for the cross-departmental approach to economic recovery that I talked about earlier.
We also need to support our small businesses, self-employed people and entrepreneurs, who have been badly hit by the pandemic. They are important employers in their own right in all our communities. We need to support them to get back to doing business when it is safe and to rebuild their confidence and capacity, and that will require both practical and financial intervention to help them respond to the new working normal. There is a particular role for Invest NI in that, and its remit needs to support SMEs and microbusinesses as well as those seeking to export. I will continue to raise that matter with Invest NI and the Department for the Economy.
Finally, we need to have a real focus on a green recovery, and, again, that requires taking a real cross-departmental approach. I was glad to see the focus on a green recovery in the Economy Minister's strategy. A clear commitment to a green new deal would have sent out a very positive signal, however. Again, that was a New Decade, New Approach commitment covering infrastructure, skills and job creation. A green new deal can be a major driver for the type of jobs-led recovery that we want to see: infrastructure development to support decarbonisation; training opportunities for our young people; investment in R&D to help with job creation in expanding fields such as renewable energy; and a retrofitting programme to help tackle fuel poverty. Obviously, paying for all those things will be a huge challenge. I have already spoken about how difficult a Budget we face. One reason that Sinn Féin advocates the devolution of greater fiscal and borrowing powers is to give the Executive the ability to plan for the type of recovery that we in the North need: a recovery that is responsive to our local economy and citizens. That is something that everyone here should be able to get on board with, in order that we can have the conversation about what we invest in and how we pay for it.

Matthew O'Toole: I listened with interest to what the previous contributor said, and, indeed, to what several Members who spoke previously said. Debating Budgets, whether Budget Bills, draft Budgets or spring Supplementary Estimates, can feel a little bit like living in a Beckett play, as we tend to say the same things over and over again. Whether it is about our local pet projects or the need for more longer-term budgeting, more strategy or a more joined-up approach across the Executive and better behaviour from the Treasury, the same things tend to get said again and again, but, unfortunately, they never seem to happen. The stage directions seem to mean that we stay put and repeat the same lines again and again.
Nevertheless, I will play my part today and repeat some of my lines about the need for longer-term budgeting and a more strategic approach. They are vital, and we can do something about them. I hope that, despite what I have just said, the next couple of years — indeed, the next few months — might bring some glimmer of hope for a better approach to budgeting and spending money in this place.
Yesterday, we debated the spring Supplementary Estimates during which I, and others, decried the lack of a coherent plan from the Executive and, indeed, the lack of real proactivity from the Department and the Minister of Finance during the financial year 2020-21 in delivering that joined-up approach.
Today, as we examine the latest Budget Bill, I will focus on the financial year to come and outline what we should be delivering on and where we should be prioritising. I will offer some thoughts on how we might finally wrestle free from the debilitating cycle of short-term budgeting and improvised, unstrategic policy. The past year has shown us, more starkly than ever, what the absence of an agreed Programme for Government means. As I said yesterday, we have not had a Programme for Government since 2016 — before Brexit. It seems like a dream period now, but, before Brexit, it did exist. I waved about a copy of the draft Budget, which referred to the 2016 still draft Programme for Government outcomes that some Departments are still working to in the absence of any other agreed outcomes or priorities. In the absence of those agreed outcomes or priorities, our budgeting process, by default, becomes the de facto Programme for Government.
I recognise and understand and, to an extent, sympathise that neither the Finance Minister or the Department may want to take on that strategic coordinating role in de facto sense, but I am afraid that they have to, and we should all recognise that. The Minister said in the Chamber yesterday that the means by which the devolved institutions receive their funding is a huge determinant of how we do government here, and he is right. How we receive the block grant and how we are funded, not just the quantum or the cash amount or the legal means by which the Treasury sends money to the Consolidated Fund to be drawn down by Departments — the actual structure by which that money is spent determines how we do government here. That is clear from how we debate monitoring rounds and legislation.
We end up, by default, debating the priorities of the Executive, and we have to ask ourselves whether that is a good thing. I do not mean the principle of drawing down money from the Treasury, because that is the system that we have. I am not saying that we should not take money from the block grant and the Consolidated Fund, but we need to ask hard questions about whether that model is leading to bad outcomes for policy delivery here.
I agree with the Finance Minister that the Budget process, where we receive allocations, occasionally in a very unplanned, uncoordinated and peremptory way from the Treasury, leads to negative outcomes. Members opposite will point out that we have received significant support from the UK Treasury — we are taxpayers here, too — over the past year. That is true. No one would deny that that financial support has been critical to supporting public services and businesses. However, it is also true that the way in which that money has been disbursed has not necessarily led to good policy outcomes. I am sure that the Finance Minister would agree. However, the corollary of that is that the Finance Department and the Finance Minister have a huge role to play in setting and executing strategic policy goals for the whole Executive and, by extension, for all the people of this region.
It is not enough for our Finance Department to act as an inbox for departmental bids, a pigeonhole for cash, or, as is often the case, cynicism from the Treasury in London. Our Budget process needs to act as a driver in the absence of a Programme for Government — a critical and dominant driver in setting priorities and delivering policy — but it is simply not doing that at the minute. Yes, COVID has made this year unique, but, even when you strip out the COVID effect, it has, in many ways, been a typical year in terms of improvisation and haggling over allocations.
That is one of the striking factors about this past year. It has been, to use a phrase, same, same but very different. It has been unique and unprecedented in the sense that we have had an unprecedented global pandemic that has shaped how Governments everywhere have had to deliver public services. It has completely shut down our economy in large part, and the Executive, like Administrations everywhere, have had to react to that, but, at the same time, it has reinforced many of the habitual budgeting behaviours that exist in this place.
I am afraid that it starts upstream, as it were, in London, with the haphazard and occasionally slightly thoughtless way in which money is allocated via Barnett. That information is then communicated to officials in the Minister's Department and flows through to the way that we budget here. The Finance Department canvasses bids from other Departments that are worried about retaining their baseline budgets, whether they will be able to spend allocations that come in late in the financial year, what that will mean for their baseline for the next year and, truthfully, what that will mean for the political position of their Minister and his or her party — all civil servants have to think about that, too. All those strange behaviours that are reinforced by our Budget process are not conducive to policy outcomes for the people whom we serve. That is the blunt and hard truth of it. As we go forward, we need to properly acknowledge that and think about how we can change it. I will come to it in a little while, but I think that there are ways to do that and light at the end of that tunnel. It may not be a very bright light, but there is some light.
As I said, COVID has made it an unbelievably strange and unique year, but it has been typical in the ways that I have described and, in a sense, has reinforced some of the bad behaviours — not necessarily "bad" in the sense of being malign or malicious but "bad" in the sense of not being particularly conducive to good policy outcomes. It has also shown the absolute necessity for priorities for this place in the short and long term. Today, we will debate a road map, set of principles, pathway or whatever it is out of the current restrictions. That is something that people throughout society and the economy have been yearning for so that they have some sort of framework to understand where they are going in the short term. They also want something else that we have signally failed to deliver to them over many years: a pathway through the medium term. Whatever — it is always worth saying it in caveat in this place — your constitutional preference, there are clear medium- and long-term things that need to be resolved in this jurisdiction. As I said, we hope to see a road map out of lockdown today, but we need something much more ambitious for this place in the short and medium term as we emerge from the pandemic or, at least, from its most acute phase.
As we emerge, we will enter a new phase in our economic life. We are at a crossroads in more ways than one. What are those crossroads? First and most obviously, we are coming out of a pandemic that will affect the way that we all live and work in ways that we have not predicted yet. We know that it will lead to much greater working from home and to disruption in significant areas of the economy and, sadly, that it has already shut down large areas of retail and hospitality in towns and cities here and everywhere. Our economy and the way that we work will have to adapt to that.
Also, as we know, for good or ill, the pandemic coincided with the UK's departure from the European Union, which has been a subject of much contention over the past five years and over the past couple of months in particular in this place. No doubt it will continue to cause contention with regard to the trading relationships between the UK and Europe, Northern Ireland's trading relationship with Great Britain and, indeed, Northern Ireland's position vis-à-vis the European single market. To come to my point, Northern Ireland is now at the crossroads of the European single market and the UK market. That means that we have something that we have never had before: a potential competitive advantage. In the past, two of the things that have led to us not having the kind of economic performance that our people need are the fact that we are geographically marginal and the fact that we are, in some ways, a hybrid society with, shall we say, contention around national identification and a dual quality, whereby we look both east and south. Those two qualities, which have been hang-ups in the past, might be positive benefits. Because of the protocol, we have access to both markets, so, in my party's view, we need to maximise the benefits from that while acknowledging and dealing with the real consequences that flow from the disruption to trade on the Irish Sea, absolutely, but also to services on an all-island basis.
We would like to see proper budgeting for the potential opportunities in being at the crossroads of those two markets. We would like to see Invest NI, as Caoimhe Archibald mentioned, InterTradeIreland, IDA Ireland and the Department for International Trade work to an agreed set of priorities for inward investment and trade opportunities in Northern Ireland that are based on our crossroads status or our dual market access.
As we leave the acute phase of COVID, we will have to deal with another key priority, which is the devastating effect that COVID and the associated lockdowns have had on our young people. My party has published a list of priorities that it wants to see in the long-term recovery for our economy and society. One of them, as I said, is taking advantage of our new unique dual market access. Another is creating a new deal for young people. From primary schoolchildren all the way up to graduates in their 20s, young people have been hit by the consequences of COVID. We know what the problems are; many were evident before COVID but have been reinforced by it. To be fair to the Education Minister, he is doing some of that work already. We want a proper skills strategy and a strategy that looks at the causes and effects of the brain drain. Uniquely in these islands, we export a very high volume of talented young people who never come back. We want to see action on that.
Finally, the third clear priority that is critical and a long-term priority that we should attach budget lines to is reform of our public services. We have seen in the pandemic the extraordinary effort and commitment of our health service in particular in dealing with the situation, but we know that our health service remains in a permanent rolling crisis. We know that waiting lists are absolutely unacceptable. They are devastating families and individuals. We need a proper commitment to overhaul our health service in a way that properly invests in transformation. Those are three potential priority areas that we think are critical.
I want to briefly talk about how we do budgeting, the fiscal council that has been mooted and the fiscal commission. Work on the three broad areas that I just talked about — a new deal for young people; taking advantage of being at the crossroads of two markets; and reforming and overhauling our public services — is possible only if we have a much better and coherent long-term approach to budgeting. As I said at the beginning of my speech, debating budgeting here feels at times like a Beckett play. We all say that we are committed to multi-year budgets, but no one ever does anything about it. It is a bit like what Mark Twain said about the weather:
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."
Hopefully, we can do something about it. I believe the Minister when he says that he is committed. I know that he wants to bring papers on the fiscal council and the fiscal commission to the Executive and the Assembly. It is critical that we do something about it, because whatever your view of the big challenges that face us, how we dealt with COVID, Brexit and the protocol or our constitutional future, it is clear that there are long-term structural issues that we need to attack in this society and region. In order to do that, we need to attach long-term Budget lines and spending to them. It is all well and good constantly coming up with reform plans every few years, but, if we do not have the political commitment and the finance attached to them, they will not work.
I hope that, by the time that we come back to debate the next Budget Bill, we will have detail not only on a fiscal council that will properly hold the Executive to account on the sustainability of spending and their commitment to transformation but detail on a one-off fiscal commission that looks in the long term at how we do budgeting and policy delivery in this place and at how our potential new powers can be linked to enable us to do that work better.
Finally, before I conclude, which I am sure people will be delighted about, it is critical that we have the power of economic forecasting attached to both those bodies. It is really important that we, as MLAs, and the broader public in Northern Ireland understand not just why we have individual Budget lines or what we are doing on education policy or skills, for example, but how that feeds into our broader economic forecast over years.
I will conclude my remarks on the Budget Bill. We will be back here, no doubt, in the next few months, and I will repeat my lines, like a character in a Beckett play, calling for longer-term budgeting and multi-year Budgets — or maybe not; maybe we will have some progress.

Mike Nesbitt: Mr O'Toole says that we use Budget debates to rehearse our pet loves, pet hates or pet projects, but I will resist the temptation not to do the same again.
I will start by repeating what I said this morning in an intervention on Mr Frew: police numbers are close to crisis. On 8 February, the number was 7,005. The Chief Constable warned that he may need to shed 300 officers because of a budget deficit. That would leave him a net 800 below the 7,500 in 'New Decade, New Approach' and in Chris Patten's recommendations, published all those years ago in September 1999 when he chaired the Independent Commission on Policing. I draw the attention of the House to recommendation 44, because this is the impact of losing 500 or 800 officers:
"Policing with the community should be the core function of the police service and the core function of every police station."
Frankly, that cannot be done if the numbers drop so far below the 7,500 that Mr Patten recommended. He also said that there should be a part-time reserve of 2,500 so that, at any given time, the Chief Constable should be able to deploy up to 10,000 officers. He is well short of that.
My second point — I have only three — is about payments to victims and survivors of the conflict who are suffering severe permanent disability. It took those people years, but they have won the argument. Those payments are in statute. We have not just a moral obligation but a legal obligation to pay them. Yet, we have not made payments because of an ongoing and deeply unedifying squabble about which pot of money they come out of. I understand that, for politicians, it is important to have a debate about the pot of money from which those payments come, but let us look at it from the point of view of victims and survivors. Whatever pot of money it comes from, it is the public purse. Victims and survivors have been told in law that the payment is theirs. They deserve it.
I invite Members to think about the issue from the point of view of victims and survivors. Take yourself back to the early 1970s. Every day, the Troubles are at their most vicious. A young wife, pregnant with her second child, is changing her first child's nappy, when her husband comes in to say goodbye because he is going to work. She is so busy changing the nappy that he kisses her on the top of her head and says, "I'll see you later, love". He never saw her again. He was dead within the hour, murdered at his workplace. Skip forward to the point where that young woman is going for compensation. She made a terrible mistake, a natural mistake. She got dressed, did her make-up and made herself look as well as she could; in her own words, "I got myself all dolled up". The judge looked at her, told her that she was a fine-looking young woman and would have no difficulty in getting another husband and adjusted her compensation accordingly. That is how we treated her.
Let us go up to the north-west. A lovely man from Derry — he calls it Derry so, out of respect to him, I will call it Derry — is on a bus one day going down the Strand Road. As he put it, "A young soldier in the sangar went berserk". The soldier discharged the entire magazine of his rifle. On the bus, the man sitting beside this man was killed. He himself suffered severe injuries in and around his groin, which led to multiple medical processes and operations.
He told me that he felt no ill will towards the soldier, which I thought was remarkably generous. He said, "He was a young fella, scared and a long way from home. He just lost it". The person with whom he was angry was the judge who awarded him the compensation, because, despite having no medical qualifications and the fact that there was a very thick medical file in front of him, the judge told this man to drop his trousers so that he could verify the injuries for himself.
A few years after the Omagh bomb, when I told that story in Omagh, I could see that a woman was getting visibly upset. When the meeting was over, everybody was having a cup of tea, and she came back into the room. She explained that she had been badly injured in the Omagh bomb and had physical scars. Before she went for her compensation, she explained to her legal representative that she was very nervous because she had never engaged with the criminal justice system. He said, "Look, don't worry about it. That's why I'm here". As they went into the office, he said, "Just one thing. At some point, somebody will put a bit of paper on the table. I want you to ignore it because that is the initial offer. It's all part of a game, and it'll be ridiculously low". The woman went in and answered questions, and then the judge invited her to take off her dress — he invited her to take off her dress — despite the fact that he had no medical qualifications and had a medical file in front of him. She was so humiliated that she lifted that bit of paper and settled. That is why we have a payment scheme for the severely, permanently disabled. In the name of God, can we not start operating it?
Thursday will be the forty-ninth anniversary of the last time that Jennifer McNern went for a walk. She had the misfortune to choose to walk to the Abercorn bar to have a drink with her sister. She lost her legs and has been in a wheelchair for 49 years, waiting for this payment. She took us to the High Court to get a judge to tell us to get on with it. Please, Minister, please: get on with it. I will leave it there.

Christopher Stalford: Thank you, Mr Nesbitt. I am pleased that you were able to finish before the next item of business. I was loath to interrupt you such was the import of your comments.
This debate will be paused to allow the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to make a statement on the Executive's pathway out of the COVID-19 restrictions. I ask Members to take their ease for a few minutes.
The debate stood suspended.
(Mr Speaker [Mr Maskey] in the Chair)

Ministerial Statement

Pathway out of the COVID-19 Restrictions

Alex Maskey: I have received notice from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement setting out how the Executive will approach the relaxations as the first steps towards a wider recovery process. I have taken the unusual step of allowing today's business to be interrupted because I am aware of the significant interest from MLAs, the public and the media in this particular issue.
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that, in light of social distancing being observed by the parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement has been relaxed. Members who are participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members who are present in the Chamber must also do that and may do so by rising in their place, as well as notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly.
I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions because a lot of Members will want to contribute this afternoon. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions should not be engaged in. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during a statement or the question period afterwards.

Michelle O'Neill: Thank you for the opportunity and for allowing us to make the statement here today and to disrupt the business that was planned. As we all know, this year, we will turn a corner in the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is much more to do, and we are not out of the woods yet.
For some, this year has been the most difficult that they have experienced, and it was a sad milestone last week when we reached the first anniversary of our first COVID-19 case here.
Sadly, we have lost over 2,000 of our fellow citizens, while 112,000 of our people have tested positive. It is, however, time to look to the future with hope, and the conditions for doing that are starting to emerge.
The vaccination programme is a foundation block for building forward towards our recovery, but it cannot take the heavy lifting on its own, especially not at this time, and restrictions in some form will, unfortunately, be a fact of life for some time yet. We are incredibly proud of the vaccines work. The Department of Health has a first-class programme of delivery, and our citizens are responding exceptionally well to the offers of taking the jab. As of 28 February, there had been 558,597 vaccine doses administered here, made up of 525,400 first doses and 33,197 second doses. That is a crucial step forward. We also continue to see good adherence to the current restrictions, and we are very grateful for that too. Consequently, the R number has reduced to between 0·8 and 1·05, and the pressure on our health service has started to reduce.
We believe that now is the time to look forward in a hopeful way, recognising that there is still a huge risk from COVID-19, especially from the potential for new variants. We cannot afford to let the numbers go back up to the point at which the health service is overstretched again. Our colleagues, friends and family members who provide health and social care services deserve our duty of care and ongoing respect. Nor do we want to be in a cycle of opening and closing huge sections of business and society. We must do everything that we can to make this the last lockdown, with the underpinning insurance policy that the Executive will take the steps needed to protect the health service. Taking all those factors together, we can take some tentative preparatory steps towards the lifting of restrictions, but great care is still required. That is why the Executive have agreed today a careful, cautious and hopeful approach to existing restrictions, and we will publish that later today for everyone to see.
We want to outline our thinking in the Assembly first. From the very outset of the pandemic, we undertook to keep the Assembly and our MLA colleagues up to date not only on our decisions but on our rationales, and we are glad to do so again today. The Executive's approach will be a cautious one. We have developed a pathway out of restrictions that builds in time between key steps and relaxations. That leaves time for decisions to be properly informed by the health, community and economic data and to see the real-time impact of the prevalence of the virus. That time will be used carefully to look at the results of the regular modelling and to assess whether it is safe to take the next step.
This is a risk-based strategy and one that, we hope, will be understood in the current COVID-19 context. Our aim is to find a safe, secure, sustainable and understandable way forward for our citizens, sectors and businesses. We will be hopeful, optimistic and realistic in our pathway. We recognise that our citizens need hope and that they will understand that we need to move carefully through the coming months. Hope and care are equally important, and that requires a balanced approach. Our approach is built on some core considerations that I will set out now.
First and foremost, our approach is risk-based and will be driven by health, community and economic data and analysis. We will not be driven by hard dates. We recognise that everyone is looking for certainty, but we do not want to set potentially unachievable dates that will only disappoint. Our commitment is that we will keep restrictions in place only as long as they are needed and that, as and when we build headroom to open a sector, we will most certainly take that opportunity.
Secondly, we will continue to be open and transparent in our decision-making. We will keep everyone up to date and explain our thinking. Keeping restrictions in place will be done only if it is necessary and is proportionate to the threat that we face from COVID-19.
Thirdly, we will continue to look holistically at the challenges that we face. While our focus today is on the pathway out of restrictions, we are also working on our building forward recovery strategy. That is where we will draw together the key interventions and actions that are needed to jump-start economic and societal recovery. We are joining up the collective effort through the Executive's COVID-19 Task Force, and, alongside the protection and recovery work streams, we are building an increased focus on adherence and strategic communications.
Finally, while we set our own course, we do not operate in a vacuum. We work closely with other jurisdictions, with the Irish Government, and with other Administrations on an east-west basis. We are willing to learn from what works best elsewhere and to share our experiences here. Our pathway includes conditions outlined by the World Health Organization.
The Executive will, of course, take our own decisions, and, in our pathway, we have set out the basis on which those decisions will be reached. An evidence base, necessity, proportionality and sustainability will be key to all decisions; we will be driven by health, economic and societal impacts and informed by key data sets in those sectors.
We will work towards the gradual and careful reopening of the nine sectors that are vital for our citizens and their families: home and community; education and young people; worship and ceremonies; sports and leisure activities; work; retail; hospitality; travel and tourism; and culture, heritage and entertainment. The pathway looks at each sector in detail. It sets out a step-by-step process, starting with where we are now and will then take the first cautious steps towards gradual easing, the further lifting of restrictions, and preparing for the future. It also illustrates our hope and aspirations for the practical real-life benefits that that will bring to our citizens. We are keen that everyone can find some comfort in the document and what we hope it means for them, while seeing the cautious steps that we will need to walk through.
In line with our commitments on transparency, the pathway also explains how we will take our decisions and the process for that. It sets out the pathway in the context of our plans for recovery. The pathway does not seek to take us back to where we were before the pandemic, and it recognises that there will be some adaptations in our lives. That will be the case across a number of sectors for some time to come. The Executive are, however, committed to getting education back as quickly as possible for the sake of children and young people and their education, well-being and future aspirations. We will do that for parents too, in partnership with our colleagues in the education system who are working so hard to adapt to the current pressures.
It is vital that all of that is grounded in the reality of the pandemic. COVID-19 continues to impact on every aspect of our lives. The new variants are a sharp reminder of the need for care. Our health responses have developed considerably over the past 12 months, and we owe a debt of gratitude to everyone who has worked in the health and social care sector.
The role that we all play this year will be important. That starts with sticking to the public health basics, which remain vital. We all benefit when we get that right. Washing our hands, keeping a safe distance from others, wearing our face coverings and reducing social contacts as much as we can make a real difference, and we cannot let those good habits go. Adhering to the remaining restrictions and engaging with our communications have played a key role in getting us to the point where we can start to think about lifting restrictions. We say thank you to everyone for that.
There are new variants, and they need to be guarded against. That is part of the reason why travel is so severely limited. We ask for patience and understanding on that point. COVID-19 is a successful virus because of its ability to transmit between people so easily. The new variants are even more so. Therefore the "Stay at home" message remains important. We know and understand that people go out for essential reasons, such as shopping, exercise, necessities and well-being, but we are concerned about crowded places, even outside. Therefore we continue to ask everyone to take great care and to think about the risks. That is why we have set out very clearly in the pathway, for everyone to see, the approach that we are taking to decision-making.
Each week, Departments will meet as a collective to discuss the available information and to proactively consider what steps can be proposed to the Executive. After each step is taken, we will pause and reflect, look at the data and the impacts, engage with the key sectors, and enable them to reopen only if it is the right thing to do. That gives us the best chance of achieving sustainable steps and avoiding another lockdown.
In summary, we publish our documents today, and we ask everyone to take the time to read and digest them, to think about the need for caution in our approach, to continue to follow the public health advice, and, most certainly, to take the vaccine when it is offered. We all have hope for this year, and, together, we will get through this.

Colin McGrath: I thank the First Ministers for their statement. It is a bit disappointing, however, that MLAs got the statement only 30 minutes before this item of business on such a serious issue that is so profound and cuts right across all of society and that we have yet to be provided with the actual plan, even though some journalists have had versions of this from early this morning.
COVID has caused major problems for most in our community, ranging from annoyance and interruptions to matters of financial existence and, indeed, death for many and grief for many more beyond that. It is not an overstatement to say that no one in our community has not been impacted, and managing that has not been easy. The Executive Office has got some of it right and some of it wrong, but today has to be about looking forward and providing positivity and ambition, something for people to look forward to, as it has been a very long, dark and depressing winter.
I want to raise a note of concern because, as I understand it, the Executive Office pathway has nine streams, with five stages moving at different speeds, meaning that there are 45 variables moving at different paces for people to engage with. I can see that causing confusion for people and it not being that easy to follow. Can you give us a commitment today that you will front a substantial information campaign, as part of this, to update people about where we are in each pathway and where we will be going to next? People in various trades and businesses will need advance notice about when they will move from each stage to the next and what that means to them. Are you prepared to go on the airwaves and pledge to people today that this Executive Office plan will be explained at each stage so that people can get the clarity that they need?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for his question. To correct something that he said: this is not an Executive Office plan; it belongs to the entire Executive. It is for us all to work together to get us out of this current phase of dealing with the pandemic. It is for every Department to do the heavy lifting, it is for every Department to engage with the sectors for which they are responsible, and it is for every Executive Minister to work together, to be on the airwaves and to do everything that we can to communicate this to the public.
Obviously, you know that the Executive meeting went on into the afternoon, and that is why we were late in even asking the Speaker to give us the space in the Chamber today to make the statement. Nonetheless, we are here, and I am glad that we are here.
As part of the plan, there is a strong communication and engagement plan, because, when it comes to getting ready for recovery and being able to open things up, it is really important that we work with all the different sectors, whether that be sport, retail or close-contact services. No matter what it is, the Executive have committed, as part of our plan, to work with the sectors, and we have started that process today. As I delivered this statement on behalf of the Executive to MLAs today, there is a parallel process under way to engage with key sectors. That will not just be done today but has to be done the whole way through this recovery, because it will not happen overnight. There is a journey to be undertaken here.
I think that the plan is a good plan in that it is flexible enough to be able to allow us to move at pace where we can and to slow down a little where we need to, if we need to. I think that dealing with every sector in a separate way, through the nine different pathways, allows people to look at what is important for them and see where they fit into the plan. I hope that many people get some comfort from that.
We have not been date-led. We said that we would be led by the data and the specifics of how the vaccine is going, the situation in our hospitals and the pressure on the health service. We have said that we will be led by the transmission of the virus and the roll-out of all these things. With all those things in the mix, it is really important that we take decisions but that we tell people why we are taking those decisions and communicate that.
I hope that the communication plan that we have also agreed on today will allow us to be able to do the very things that the Member has set out.

Alex Maskey: Before I bring in the next Member to speak, I remind Members that you will not have the same latitude in asking your questions that the Chairperson of the Committee did, and appropriately so.

Pam Cameron: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement to the House after what has been an incredibly difficult year for many, not least those who are vulnerable and, indeed, those whose families have been bereaved and have been unable to process that grief in a normal fashion. Will the deputy First Minister make it clear that the indicators on which the Executive as a whole will take decisions on relaxations will include economic and educational sectors and will not be just about the figures that are produced by the Department of Health?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. We have set ourselves a range of principles by which we will take our decisions: health, the community and the economy. All three things are crucial. It is about the vaccination roll-out, capacity in the health service and the rate of transmission of the virus. Alongside that, it is about the mental health and physical well-being of all our people. This has been one of the most challenging years that many of us have been through. We recognise that, and we want to factor it in to our decision-making. It is about the education of our children and young people. The Executive have prioritised the issue of schools being opened safely. It is about the impacts on the more vulnerable, whom you referred to. Alongside that are the economic impacts, such as the impact on workers and businesses and the availability of economic support to assist businesses. Those three areas will be factored in to all our decision-making.

Doug Beattie: I genuinely thank the Minister for that really welcome statement. I join the Chair in being disappointed that I have been able to follow this on social media for some time. We really need to fix the leakage from the Executive.
You said something really important, which was that we will move at pace but will move slowly where we have to. That is the right thing to do in the various sectors. However, Boris Johnson made a clear commitment when he said that we will not go backwards. Will you able to make the commitment today that, once we have gone forward to a phase, there will be no going back?

Michelle O'Neill: Leaks from the Executive are unfortunate. The media do not have the final version, so whatever was leaked was done in advance of the Executive's final considerations.
Today, we want to give people hope. We want people to know that there is something to grab onto and that we have a way forward. We should also be honest with the public and say that the virus is still among us, it is still spreading at too high a rate and there are new variants. What we are trying to achieve with the plan, if we do it in a gradual and considered way and work our way through it gradually and if we are cautious and take the right decisions at the right time, is to mitigate the risk of going backwards. Nobody wants to go backwards; we want to go forwards. We have deliberately stayed away from giving dates because that gives people false hope and builds up an expectation that they grab onto and then, unfortunately, they can be disappointed. We are trying to do this with the public and with the sectors, gradually easing our way through. We hope and think that the plan is the best way to avoid any slip back into stricter restrictions.

Sinéad Ennis: I thank the Minister for her statement. The publication of the pathway to recovery document will give our citizens some sense that there is an end in sight to the unprecedented crisis that we have all had to contend with over the past 12 months.
Given the experience of coming out of previous lockdowns, will the joint First Minister set out how the Executive will engage with each of the key sectors — sport, arts, culture, business and, of course, the community and voluntary sector — so that they can properly prepare for the steps that they need to take to aid the recovery?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. She is right in saying that we have been through this before. This is our third reversal out of restrictions. We are trying to learn from experience and find a way to work in tandem with the sectors where we can. We understand absolutely that people need time to plan and adjust. We want to work with the sectors, which is why some discussions are already happening this afternoon. We intend, as part of our engagement plan, to engage with the key sectors — retail, business, hospitality, sport and the arts — and give as much notice as we can where measures are to be eased. We will do all that in a balanced way in terms of the health, economic, social and family impacts.
The Member may know that, in the past, junior Ministers led a lot of the work on engagement with the sectors. We envisage that that will happen again. It is really important that we put as much information as possible on our decision-making into the public domain. We hope that people can see that our plan sets out how we will make decisions and when we will make decisions and that we will work with the sectors. Hopefully, that gives some comfort to sectors that have been so detrimentally impacted by the pandemic.

Kellie Armstrong: I want to say, "Thank you" to all in the Executive. Today, we have light at the end of the tunnel. Society has been struggling for over a year; at least we now have something. People will be looking desperately for a date for stage 2 that is listed in the document. I appreciate that we need to be led by the medical advice. It is mentioned that 16 March will be an Executive review date. Can we give the public something that they can aim for and say when they can look forward to section 2 in the document being released?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for her positive comments. This is very much a day of hope. We are saying to people, "Be cautious, and be steady as you go", but we are also saying that there is a way out and this is where we are headed. We have nine pathways, each of which has five steps. You can move at different speeds across each one. We have set it out that we will review the process every four weeks. The first review date, which we had announced previously, is 16 March, when a paper will come forward from Health setting out, "Here is what we can do". I will caution and be upfront enough to say that we do not expect any sort of major change before Easter, but we hope that there will be room and flexibility on the other side of Easter. The dates for the Executive's comprehensive reviews are 16 March, 15 April, 13 May and 10 June. People will probably compute that to a time frame in their own heads. However, those are review points in time. It does not mean that we can do everything within each step in those periods; it will depend on all the other factors. However, it gives people a bit of an idea of what we are aiming for.

Paula Bradley: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. Minister, maybe I am reading too much into this, but I hope that the order in which the nine sectors are put down will not be the order of the easements. Number 4 is sports and leisure. Have the Executive placed sufficient importance on sports and leisure when it comes to the mental and physical health of our greater population, especially our young people? We need that easement to happen sooner rather than later.

Michelle O'Neill: I could not agree more. This has been such a desperate year for everybody but, in particular, for children and young people, who have not been in school with their peers and their friends and have not been able to go to their sports clubs or do whatever it is that they are interested in. Our priority is to get children back out to the outdoors as quickly as possible. I am glad to say that, in the pathway document, the first step under sport looks at being able to give more flexibility to children and young people:
"Outdoor sports facilities re-open for training and organised group activities".
That is young people getting together for their sports clubs or whatever it is that they are interested in. It mentions:
"Outdoor sport for children can resume with accompanying responsible adults allowed to attend".
Those are the Saturday morning games that many children have been denied for the last year because of the pandemic. In that first phase, another area that we have looked at is the resumption of outdoor competitive sport. Given how important sport is to our physical and mental well-being, that is positive, particularly for children and young people, who can look at this and think, "We are in the first category, so hopefully that is not too far off".

John O'Dowd: I thank the joint First Minister for the statement and welcome the publication of the pathway report. There has been much debate, including in the Chamber today, of data versus dates. Does the joint First Minister agree that COVID does not have a calendar or a diary secretary and does not work to dates but does work to human behaviour? That is why it is correct that, in the plan, we operate to data.
Will the Minister elaborate on why it is important that we operate according to the "health, community and economic data", as she outlined, rather than dealing simply with dates?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member. We think that this is the best way to be upfront and honest with people about what we are facing into. We are not out of the woods, and we have difficult weeks and months ahead. There are so many uncertainties with COVID-19 that, at times, it is hard to be definitive. As the Member recognises, we are judging our ability to move forward against the capacity in the health service, our vaccination programme remaining on track and our test, trace and protect strategy doing its job. Also, the Department of Health is to roll out additional testing in different settings. All those things allow us to have optimism. The data-not-dates approach means, essentially, that, each time that we take a step, we will take a step back in our decision-making. We will pause, reflect and look at the impact of the step taken. We will engage with the key sectors and plan what comes next. This approach enables us to move forward cautiously, on the basis of the evidence that we have in front of us and working in conjunction with the sectors.

Paul Givan: People will look at the document and ask this question: what does it mean for me and when? That will be the first reaction. People will then want to understand the parameters by which those decisions are being informed. Data is very important, but it is the analysis of that data that leads to decisions, and that will be the test for the Executive.
Today's data shows that our transmission rates are where they were last September. We have a vaccination programme and are much further ahead than the Republic of Ireland. Scotland, Wales and England will have their children back to school before we do. Deputy First Minister, you say that the plan gives you flexibility to move more quickly. If that is the case, given all that I have outlined, is this not an opportunity to prove, as this party wants, that our children are prioritised by getting them back to school more quickly? The data provides the evidence for that decision to be made.

Michelle O'Neill: You can interpret the data in whatever way you wish, but our position is different from the position in the Twenty-six Counties, England, Scotland or Wales. Our rates per 100,000 are higher than elsewhere. It is really important that we take all those things into account. I remind the Member that his party is also in the Executive and agrees with the approach. We have all signed up to the plan.
Listen, this is not a day for division. This is a day to show a united front: that we want to get to the other end of this as quickly as possible and will pull out all the stops to do that, but that we must be very cautious in doing so. Remember what happened last September, October, November and December and where we ended up in January. Nobody wants to be there again. Health service staff do not want to be there again. Everybody needs to put their shoulder to the wheel. Every Minister in the Executive and every elected representative needs to be responsible.
There will be a temptation to move very quickly and for people to ask, "What about this sector, that sector and the other?" This is a planned way to do it. There is no room to be haphazard about it. It needs to be done gradually and in a sustainable way, because we do not want to go back into lockdown again. Let us take our time and move cautiously. Our priority is to get children back to school safely. That is what the document says, again, today. We have already announced two phases for schools. The document also says that, after Easter, we will commence the next phase, and that is where we should be. The Executive as a whole have prioritised getting children back to school, but it must be safe. There are so many variables right now that we have to be careful and very cautious. Today is a day of hope, and that is what I want the public at home to feel on seeing what we are doing here today.

Colm Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, joint First Minister, for the statement and for your answers to the questions today. I particularly welcome the document's acknowledgement of the willingness and recognition of the ability to learn from places that have done better in this and previous pandemics. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the very significant contribution made by the experts and academics who have given evidence to the Health Committee and in other fora.
Despite the enormous difficulties that we as a society have faced over the past 12 months, the strategy for recovery provides an opportunity to do things differently and, indeed, to strive to do things better moving forward, rather than simply returning to normality. As part of that building back after the pandemic, will the joint First Minister commit to ensuring that equal consideration is given to social improvement as to economic recovery?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. Absolutely, yes, I think that we have an opportunity to build. This is only the first step. In our pathway out of restrictions, the Executive have clearly set out that we have three layers of work to take forward. The first is this piece of work on lifting the restrictions, and that builds the foundation for the short- to medium-term recovery. Secondly, in the short- to medium-term recovery, it is about interventions that jump-start the longer-term economic, community and societal renewal. The third phase of that work is around the renewal, the Programme for Government outcomes and the longer-term aspirations.
There has been so much good over the last year, and so many people have adapted what they do, whether that be healthcare students and social workers stepping up to the front line, people who have retired coming back into the health service, business repurposing their businesses or the sports sector, right across the sporting codes, stepping up and helping communities. The work has been amazing, and I hope that we never lose that again.
In building for something better in the future, we have to have a clear focus on protecting jobs and livelihoods. It has to be about a more inclusive and caring society. It has to be about a whole of government and society approach. If there is one thing that the pandemic has certainly exposed, it is the fact that, over this year, the pandemic has disproportionately impacted on those who are more vulnerable in society: families who are living in poverty, living in crowded homes and working for low incomes. It has particularly hit women, who usually shoulder more of the caring responsibilities. Certainly for me, this has highlighted all those things. In building for the future, we need to think about how we build a different and better society. That has to be the outworking of the Executive's pathway for recovery. It is certainly where I will be focused.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement today. It is disappointing, for a Member of the House, that the pathway document made its way on to the TEO's website before it was circulated to MLAs. The communications strategy with Members of the Assembly urgently needs to change. It is long past due.
It is welcome that we have finally got this document. Deputy First Minister, you are right that it has to be said that it offers some hope to people who have been at home for some time. There are many couples who are hoping to get married. In the last year, many delayed their ceremony because there was uncertainty over whether there would be a reception, which was because of the level of infection in communities. Now that we have this document, can you provide some clarification on when those who are planning to get married can do so with members of their family in attendance, be it 25, 50 or otherwise? If you could provide some clarification, it would be very welcome.

Michelle O'Neill: I have also spoken with many very disappointed brides this year. The pandemic has been so detrimental in so many ways to the really important times and milestones in people's lives. On worship and ceremonies, last week, the junior Ministers had a meeting with the faith leaders, and we believe that a recommendation will come to the Executive on how we can return services in places of worship, including the ceremony part of weddings, back to where it was previously. You may remember that there was a risk assessment and mitigation. We expect to receive a paper on that, and I think that it is imminent. That will hopefully then give some assurance and clarity to couples who waiting to know whether they can have their wedding ceremony and its size. The reception end of things will obviously be a bit of a period away. If you look to the hospitality piece, you see that it will be a bit of time before you will be able to get back to larger numbers there. However, it is a hopeful day as well, and we hope to give people the clarity as quickly as we possibly can. We will not keep these restrictions in place for any longer than is necessary.

Alan Chambers: Deputy First Minister, you quoted in your statement the fact that over 2,000 people have died and over 112,000 people have tested positive.
That demonstrates the scale of the pandemic, and today is a day when the thoughts of all in the House will be with those people and their families.
We have something to be proud of with our vaccination programme, and it does offer hope. You acknowledged in your statement, deputy First Minister, that vaccinating on its own will not defeat the pandemic. You also acknowledged the good adherence to the current restrictions and reinforced the need for us all to continue to work together. We owe a huge debt to our medical and scientific experts.
Do you agree that there continues to be a huge responsibility placed on the shoulders of all public representatives who serve in this House and in other places not to say or do anything to undermine the corporate public health messages?

Michelle O'Neill: Thanks to the Member. I concur with him on the vaccination roll-out. It has been excellent, and all credit to the teams that have been working to get the vaccines rolled out. I was listening this morning to the reports about the proposed vaccination centre at the SSE Arena, which is another positive step.
The message here is consistent across the Executive. The message here is consistent for us all. This is a day of hope and optimism. This is a day to look to the future but a day to tread carefully. If we continue to communicate that message in the right way, it will help bring the public with us. It is understandable that people are tired of COVID. We have been going through this for a year. Everybody has been denied so much, be it family gatherings or birthdays. People have missed so many milestones, and they want to know when they can get there again. We will get there quicker if people work with us just until we get to the end of the current restrictions.

William Irwin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. What encouragement can she give to business owners who are desperate to get their businesses open again? Many of them have been at 'Wits' End Corner'.

Michelle O'Neill: The pandemic has been detrimental to many of our businesses, particularly small businesses. So many are still on furlough. The consequences of the pandemic are enormous, and we are dealing with them every day. We have done our best to provide financial support to businesses to get them through the pandemic. Furlough has helped, but it is still challenging for businesses. That is why we have committed in our plan to taking into account the health, community and economic implications. That is what will help inform our decisions. We have no desire to keep the doors of any business closed for longer than is necessary. Our priority is to save lives and do our best for the public, but that has to be done in staged way. This plan offers us the best opportunity to get to the other side of the restrictions as quickly as possible.

Karen Mullan: I also thank the Minister for the statement and welcome the hope that it provides.
The joint First Minister will appreciate the enormous contribution that sports and sporting bodies make to our health and well-being. Throughout the pandemic, children have been at home for months. Many parents are anxious to know when their children and young people will be able to return to sports. Minister, how can we assure parents that it is safe for children to return to sports and how can we support our sporting clubs to reopen?

Michelle O'Neill: Thank you to the Member. That is my first question via StarLeaf, so it is a new experience.
As I said in response to a question from Paula, children and young people need to be outdoors, exercising and back at their sport. That is what I get from the young people in my family, and I know that that is the concern of many parents. The pandemic has denied children so much over the past year, and we are determined to get things opened up as quickly as we possibly can in that area, because we know how important sport and leisure are to physical and mental health, even from just getting together. It is about team building, lifelong bonding and all of that.
I am delighted that, in our discussion in the Executive about the first step for sports and leisure activities, we made a commitment to resume outdoor sport for children, which will be in the first phase. Hopefully, we can get there fairly quickly, all being well, with things continuing as they are and the public continuing to work with us. I will be pleased if we can get there, and it is important that we do so as quickly as possible.

Chris Lyttle: As has been mentioned, children and young people have paid a great price for the safety of others during the pandemic. As a youth sports coach, I welcome the scheduled return of outdoor youth sport, training and games without spectators at stage 2 of the sport and leisure pathway. I also note the commitment to publish a building forward recovery strategy. Will the Executive also publish a children and young people's recovery strategy, including educational, emotional and physical recovery for all children and young people?

Michelle O'Neill: The Executive have not discussed that, but it is a very good idea. We should be putting particular emphasis on children and young people. We have talked about them in the overarching plans, but when it comes to specifics for the year ahead, and for a couple of years ahead, we must do what we can to support children and young people in schools sports or community settings. I am more than happy to take that back to the Executive to see whether there is something more that we can do to progress it.

Caoimhe Archibald: I, too, thank the Minister for the very welcome statement. As she said, it is important that we give people hope for the way forward. As she will be aware, the pandemic has highlighted and, in some ways, reinforced social, economic and health inequalities across our communities. It has exposed some very difficult issues that need to be addressed in a strategic way. Will she set out how the Executive will address those issues as we move forward to recovery and try to build a different and better society?

Michelle O'Neill: As I said earlier, it is important that we try to build a better society on the other side of the pandemic. I pointed out that in rebuilding our community after the pandemic, we have to target those in need — people in housing need, people in poverty, and people who live in overcrowded homes. Homelessness has increased during the pandemic. The Department for Communities has done a lot of good work to support targeted groups, but there is an awful lot more to be done. When I reflect on the impact of the pandemic on women, for example, there is a huge issue there that needs to be addressed. Many women bear the majority of caring responsibilities, and we also know that there has been an alarming rise in domestic violence throughout the pandemic. There are a lot of things that we need to do to build a better society, and that has to be a major factor in our economic recovery and in the pathway that we are adopting.

Cara Hunter: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answers so far. Looking through the pathway, it is welcome that one of the strategic priorities is maintaining the health and well-being of all our citizens. Given the welcome pace of the vaccine programme, what plans do the Executive have to introduce an improved, full-scale and comprehensive track-and-trace system? What further steps have been considered to ensure that future outbreaks can be contained so that we do not have to reverse any elements of the plan?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for her question. If she has seen the pathway, she will know that there have been major developments on the health front. Track, trace and isolate systems come under the Department of Health's remit, and it is for that Department to bring forward improvements. I agree that that is the best way to target the virus: track it, trace it, and isolate it. From the outset of the pandemic, the World Health Organization said that, to deal with the virus successfully, we needed a first-class test, trace and isolate system.
I welcome the fact that the pathway to recovery contains a commitment by the Department of Health about the work that will be done, and we need to be very focused on that.
Alongside that, there will be additional testing. There is talk of developing testing in schools; lateral flow tests that can be turned around quickly. All those things combined will give us the best possible chance to be able to lift all the restrictions. It will not be one thing; we should not put all our eggs in the vaccine basket because, clearly, whilst the vaccine is hugely effective, we do not have evidence that it stops the spread of the virus. Therefore, we need to have a combination of efforts and ensure that we implement every one of them faithfully in order to give us the best possible chance.

Alex Maskey: Before I call the next Member, I want to remind the House that a number of Members still want to contribute and ask questions. I ask everybody to be as succinct as possible.

Pat Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an ráitis seo inniu. I thank the Minister for her statement. The publication of that pathway document will be welcomed by most people across our communities insofar as it signals a return to some sort of normality in our lives. Will the Minister detail the process that will determine movement between the different phases in the easing of restrictions?

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, the Executive's recovery document outlines the five phases and how we plan to reduce and, ultimately, remove the current restrictions. We have to use a broad range of data and statistical indicators to inform decisions on the relaxation of restrictions or whether we need to return to strengthening them, which we are, obviously, trying to avoid. It is really important that, alongside all the factors that I have mentioned, such as the fact that we are making rapid progress with the vaccine, we suppress the virus. That has to be at the forefront of our considerations across all phases and beyond. If we move too quickly, we could end up with transmission rates that rise so quickly that the health service becomes overwhelmed again. We want to avoid that.
The other issue is that, with the emergence of the new variants, it is even more important for us to be cautious in our approach. I can say to the Member, however, that there will be linkages and interdependencies across the various pathways. That is critical, because taking action in one area may require action in another. Therefore, it is important that we sequence all those things and be as careful as we can but follow the pathway that we have set out and consider, at all times, the pathway as a whole.

Mike Nesbitt: The deputy First Minister referred to the impact of the pandemic on women. However, on 16 November 2020, I asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their reaction to the Women's Policy Group's feminist COVID recovery plan. That was more than three months ago. I have heard nothing.

Michelle O'Neill: I am more than happy to get back to the Member on that issue. I know that he raised it during Question Time. I am, absolutely, all for a feminist recovery plan. I am more than happy to ensure that, factored into all the decisions that we take as an Executive as a whole, we actually take on board the fact that the pandemic has been so detrimental, disproportionately, towards women for a whole variety of reasons. I have actually had quite a number of engagements with the women's sector and Women in Business, for example, around how we can build a fairer recovery, particularly in relation to women. That is all incorporated into the work that we do every day.

Pat Catney: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. Additional certainty for businesses is, obviously, welcome. However, many will be disappointed that the statement and accompanying infographic will not allow them to make the important decisions that are needed to protect jobs. Will the Executive Office provide a more detailed breakdown for business owners?

Michelle O'Neill: I believe that I have set out clearly what our next steps will be. The document sets out the pathway and lets people see the five areas and steps that we will take. It also gives our commitment to work with sectors, including the business community, around where they fit in that and how we get ready for them to open, because this should be about getting ready to open. We have committed very strongly to working with the sector to allow it to get to the point that it can open as quickly and safely as possible, but, most importantly, as sustainably as possible.

Steve Aiken: I thank the deputy First Minister for her comments and answers. Obviously, one of the most fundamental questions that we have is about public confidence in the Executive and the political messaging that is needed going forward to have it. Will the First and deputy First Ministers assure us and the people of Northern Ireland that they will maintain the message and have their political parties roll in behind it?

Michelle O'Neill: I am making this statement today on behalf of the entire Executive. I hope that all Ministers, elected representatives, Chairs of Committees and everybody else work together to deliver a collective message.

Rachel Woods: I thank the deputy First Minister for making the statement. Yet again, Members were shown discourtesy by having to get information about the statement from the media. The document looks like a copy-and-paste job of what was published last May, and that plan was not worth the paper it was written on. I ask the deputy First Minister this: are the Executive finally ready to take politics out of our response to COVID-19? What input has the expert task force had in this recovery plan? What role will it play in moving forward to ensure that the plan is not going to be about competing political priorities?

Michelle O'Neill: The Member refers to not playing politics, and I encourage that to be the case with the statement today. This is an Executive statement. All the Ministers are working together. It is a collective effort. It is to give us a pathway out of the restrictions. I am very hopeful about the pathway. I believe that it is the right pathway to take us out of restrictions. I, certainly, have never played politics with the pandemic, and I would never do so. It is really important that all Ministers and all elected representatives work together as this is a very serious situation. It has been a very difficult year. However, people have reason to have optimism and to look to the future with some degree of confidence, but we need to take people out of the situation in a staged way.
If the Member has any ideas, I am more than happy to listen to any that she wishes to send to me. I am more than happy to listen to her approach and to how she thinks this plan could be improved.

Jim Allister: While other regions have been given hope and dates, we have been given a cliché-ridden algorithm for dither. It is not much of a satnav if it does not tell you the route or when you expect to get there.
High-sounding clichés about being data-driven are really about providing opportunities to cover Executive indecision and disagreement, but they do nothing to answer ordinary people's questions. When can we get our kids permanently back into school without that being on some hokey-cokey basis? When can we get our businesses open? When can we get our kids back to playing sport? When can families engage in recreation and use their caravans again? Those are the questions that people want to be answered. All we have today is, "Maybe". It is not good enough.

Michelle O'Neill: The Member has made his views known in his typical negative form. However, I will tell you when kids will be back in school: when it is safe. I will tell you when businesses will be opened: when it is safe. I will tell you when children can get back to playing sport: when it is safe. I will tell you when families can get back together again: when it is safe. The most important thing is to deliver the pathway and work our way through it in the most sustainable way. The pathway needs to be sustainable. None of us wants to roll back; we want to only make progress.
The best way that the public can have confidence that we will keep only going forward is if we work our way through the pathway in the staged approach that has been set out. We do not want families to be apart for any longer than is necessary. We do not want businesses' doors to be closed for any longer than is necessary. We do not want friends to be kept apart. We do not want all the detrimental realities of life that we are facing because of the pandemic to continue for any longer than is necessary. However, I believe that the pathway gives us the best plan to take us out of the current period of restrictions.

Gerry Carroll: With these announcements, more questions tend to arise. I hope that more time can be set aside to discuss and scrutinise this document. Minister, the section on work in the leaked document said that stage 2 will see:
"Relaxation of restrictions on workplace attendance",
whereas, serious restrictions remain on households and private life at stage 2 of "Home and Community".
To me, that repeats the mistakes of the past. There are huge restrictions on households and private life, yet people are being forced into unsafe workplace conditions. What assurances can the Minister give that there will not be a repeat of the mistakes of the past and that people will not be pushed into working conditions when it is not safe?

Michelle O'Neill: I can certainly say that no one should be forced to go into an unsafe workplace. We have made that very clear the whole way through the pandemic. Employers need to be responsible, and they need to allow staff, where they can, to work from home. If staff need to go to work, there needs to be strong mitigation in place. I remember that, previously in the House, I encouraged the Member, who had concerns, to raise them with the relevant authority, whether it be a council or the HSE. If there are any issues with staff, it is incumbent on us all to do that.
The difficulty in all this is to get the right balance and to allow the maximum number of restrictions to be lifted with the least amount of risk. That is challenging. It is particularly challenging in the area of our family lives. We all miss our families. We in the Chamber are no different to anybody else in that regard. The challenge, certainly from the health point of view, is that the public health advice is always that, when we are together, we naturally let our guard down. That is just what you do; it is the nature of life. That is why those things perhaps take a little longer.
I welcome the fact that, from 8 March, people from two families can get together outside. That will be an improvement. I also welcome the fact that, if you look at the different steps in terms of home and community life, you can see that we will be able to move quickly to try to get that back to some sense of normality for people over the course of the plan. As I said, none of us wants to see families apart for any longer. This has been one tough year. We want to remove the restrictions as quickly as possible, but we need to do it in a safe way, otherwise we will be back to square one.

Claire Sugden: I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their statement. It is clear that the virus is responding to the vaccination programme, but I also expect that it is responding to the change in season. Autumn and winter will come again, and, due to variants, as the deputy First Minister said, there could be a spike towards the end of the year. I think that it was you, deputy First Minister — perhaps it was the First Minister — who said in November that we need to learn to live with the virus. How do we do that? We cannot keep finding ourselves in restrictions and lockdown, and we cannot keep shutting down our economy and our society.

Michelle O'Neill: I thank the Member for that question. That is one of the things that we factored in. It is about resilience into the future. We want to get to the point at which we can lift the restrictions, but we also have to be very much focused on how to make sure that things are resilient into the future, including what mitigations we put in place to pre-empt what could happen again in the autumn. You are right: the season change and a combination of factors are probably why we are in the position that we are in today. We know that the virus is seasonal. As we go through this, part of the plan for the future is determining what resilient measures we need to put in place to allow us to cope with that in the autumn. That is factored into the plan.

Alex Maskey: That concludes questions on the statement. Thank you all for your contributions. Members can take their ease for a moment or two.

Rachel Woods: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 18A dictates operations on oral ministerial statements. Standing Order 18A(2) holds:
"The Minister shall make a written copy of the statement available to members as early as possible and ... at least 30 minutes before delivering the statement in the Assembly."
Standing Order 18A(3) holds:
"The written copy, whether or not embargoed, shall not be given to members of the news media before it is made available to members."
Mr Speaker, can you advise whether there is anything that you can do, using the power of your office, to ensure that, in the future, Members receive the courtesy that should be afforded to them under Standing Orders when it comes to ministerial statements?

Alex Maskey: We did receive the ministerial statement today. Somebody leaked documents to the media, and that is a matter for the people who leaked those documents. You are in the political world and you are a big woman, so you will understand that, unfortunately, people leak confidential documents. That does a great disservice, in my view, to Members of the House. Your point has been made. As I said, the statement was received in accordance with the requirements. Whoever leaked the documents leaked the documents. I cannot comment on that.

Rachel Woods: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 18A(2) states that the statement should be:
"available to members as early as possible and ... at least 30 minutes before delivering the statement".
The statement was received by my office, via email, at 3.23 pm. The statement was scheduled for and made at 3.45 pm, which was within 30 minutes of my office receiving it. Can your office look into that to ensure that, as required by Standing Orders, we get statements 30 minutes before they are made?

Alex Maskey: I will look into that. Thank you.

Executive Committee Business

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.

House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung.

Upon 10 Members being present —
Debate resumed on motion:
That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 17/17-22] be agreed. — [Mr Murphy (The Minister of Finance).]

Paul Givan: I welcome the opportunity to speak as the Chairman of the Committee for Justice in the debate. Throughout the last year, the Committee has scrutinised the Department of Justice’s budget through regular oral and written briefings and updates, including on in-year monitoring rounds, bids for COVID-19 funding and the forecasting performance. The Department also provided briefings on its financial planning and the draft budget for the year ahead.
Like all Departments, the Department of Justice’s budget planning for 2020-21 took place before the COVID-19 crisis materialised. The pandemic continues to affect the delivery of services, with new ways of working having to be found and new procedures being put in place across the justice sector. Inevitably, this has had an impact on planning and expenditure, and a number of COVID-19 reprioritisation exercises were undertaken to try to assess requirements and align resources to manage emerging pressures and changing circumstances throughout the year.
Over the year, bids for COVID-19 funding totalling in the region of £63 million were submitted, and the Department received £31·5 million of the funding requested.
This included funding for the PSNI, the Prison Service, the Northern Ireland temporary resting place and PPE. A number of the unsuccessful bids were funded by reduced requirements within the Department or costs that were originally anticipated and no longer required. Of the ring-fenced COVID-19 funding received by the Department, £4·6 million was returned at the January monitoring round, £4 million of which was for PPE for the police service, as costs were less than anticipated, and £500,000 of which was a result of an increase in expected courts income due to increased court activity in the latter part of the year.
The pandemic also impacted on capital expenditure, with £5·5 million being returned by the PSNI in October, mainly due to issues in the supply chain and reduced capacity to deliver due to the impact of COVID-19. The Department returned a further £3·4 million in January which came from easements from delays in IT projects, the Northern Ireland temporary resting place and income from the disposal of police vehicles.
With regard to other funding, the Department was allocated EU exit funding of £4·5 million resource and £1·1 million capital for the PSNI in-year. That was for the funding of 308 officers and staff who are already employed and for whom funding was received last year. A reduced requirement of just over £300,000 of EU exit funding was declared in January because of a delay in filling posts in the courts. The Department confirmed that it intends to fill those posts in 2021-22. The Department advised that, at the conclusion of the January monitoring round, it was in a break-even position for 2020-21 with regard to both resource and capital. Following the publication of the spring Supplementary Estimates last week, the Committee sought urgent clarity on the additional £40 million that has been included in annually managed expenditure (AME) for the Legal Services Agency. The Department has confirmed that this is to cover legal aid provisions and represents the total balance sheet value of all future liabilities for accounting purposes, not the actual in-year cash value of claims that are due to be paid out.
I turn to the Budget for the year ahead. Departmental officials provided an oral briefing in early November on the Department’s submission to the Department of Finance for future years’ Budget information-gathering exercise. The Committee heard that the Department was facing inescapable resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) pressures of just over £55 million in the coming financial year. Officials advised that this will be difficult to absorb without impacting on front-line service delivery. In a subsequent written update, the Department pointed out that these pressures should be considered not in isolation but in the context of a baseline that has fallen by around 9% since 2011. Details were provided of a range of measures that have already been taken by spending areas to manage that decreasing budget, along with further measures that may be required across all spending areas in the future.
Following the statement on the 2021-22 draft Budget by the Minister of Finance on 18 January, the Committee wrote to the Department’s non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) requesting their views on their proposed allocations for the year ahead. The views of the Policing Board on the PSNI’s budget were also requested, given that the PSNI accounts for such a significant proportion of the Department’s budget. These responses, which make for grim reading, helped to inform members’ discussions with officials on the draft Budget allocation for the Department of Justice during an oral briefing on 4 February.
The Department’s draft allocation for non-ring-fenced DEL was £1,124 million, which, on the face of it, appears to be a 5·1% uplift on the flat baseline budget. It has been pointed out, however, that the increase is not new funding but takes account of funding provided in previous years that was not included in the baseline, and so does not compare like with like. The Committee heard that the legacy allocation of £4·2 million, which represents an uplift of less than 0.5% on the baseline, could be considered to be the only new money. Essentially, the Department is looking at a flat cash budget for the year.
The draft allocation for capital for the Department was £96·4 million, an increase of £8·3 million from the previous year. The Department views this as a reasonable capital budget and believes it will be sufficient to meet inescapable requirements. The Committee has noted that it is significantly less than the £150 million of capital bids submitted in the information-gathering exercise and is awaiting further information from the Department on the key projects that will be delivered and those which will not now be taken forward in the new financial year.
During the oral briefing on 4 February, officials advised that work was ongoing to assess the impact of the Budget, determine priorities and finalise allocations across the Department. Responses from spending areas were due to be provided to the Department by the following day. Officials, therefore, had not had sight of some of the information at that stage that had been provided to the Committee, and they undertook to update the Committee when information from the spending areas had been collated and considered by the Minister. In the absence of fuller information, the Committee was therefore unable to properly assess the Department's budgetary position in order to provide a detailed response to the Committee for Finance's deadline, which was a consequence of the limited time afforded to the wider consultation on the Budget. Instead, the Committee agreed to provide a summary of the key areas discussed with officials.
I wish to take the opportunity to highlight some of the key issues that are likely to feature in the Committee's ongoing scrutiny of the Department of Justice's priorities and budgets in the year ahead.
The Department faces pressures of almost £56 million on inescapable pressures and staffing. They cover a range of matters that includes pay, legal aid, staffing, victims and witnesses, and PSNI operational pressures. The Department has advised that there will be no additional funding available to manage those. At the time, officials were unable to indicate how they might be managed but advised that the aim would be to minimise front-line impact. However, they pointed out that it is possible that there will be an impact on staffing across a range of bodies, as around 70% of the Department's budget goes towards staff costs. The concerns around staffing were echoed by a number of the NDPBs in their responses to the Committee.
It would be fair to say that the information from the police and the Policing Board on the measures that may be required for the service to live within its budgetary allocation gave the Committee cause for considerable concern. Members throughout the House will be aware of the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to increase the number of police officers to 7,500. To achieve that, a bid has been submitted for funding for 153 officers in this financial year. However, on the basis of the indicative draft Budget allocation, the PSNI has advised that it may be necessary to reduce the number of officers in the next financial year by up to 300, taking it down 6,700. Therefore, even if the bid for the NDNA funding is successful, we are moving away from the target of 7,500 police officers, rather than towards it.
As was the case in 2020-21, EU exit funding for the police has fallen short of requirements. Additional funding was secured for that year through the in-year monitoring process, and the Committee understands that discussions are ongoing with HM Treasury to secure the balance of funding required for the forthcoming year.
The PSNI has advised that protecting neighbourhood policing and its existing level of resources will be its priority. That focus is to be welcomed, but it will inevitably create pressures in other areas of service delivery and capability, such as specialist functions, which may, in turn, have a knock-on effect in other parts of the justice system. For example, in its consideration of the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill, the Committee has heard that delays in progressing criminal cases are often due to the time taken to extract digital information from various devices and systems. Any reduction in that type of specialist function will serve only to exacerbate delays in criminal cases, which are already too lengthy.
Concerns were raised with officials regarding the potential wider impact that any cut in the Probation Board’s budget might have on the wider justice sector. Staffing costs account for 88% of that budget, and the Probation Board advised that the only way to meet pressures may be to reduce its headcount. Any reduction in staffing levels would have an impact on the rehabilitation of offenders and could, for example, result in a rise in crime and an increase in court appearances. Members also highlighted the potential knock-on effect of a reduction in funding for community and voluntary organisations that do important work in that area. The Committee heard that, in its earlier response to the information-gathering exercise, the Probation Board indicated a concern about its ability to fulfil its statutory functions and to provide a safe probation service. However, officials were unable to provide further comment because, at the time of the oral briefing, the Probation Board's updated response to the Department on its draft Budget allocation had not been received.
Officials advised that the draft Budget allocation to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) did not include problem-solving justice funding, which will be allocated in-year. In addition, the Department will bid for Tackling Paramilitarism funding, under which the Probation Board's Aspire and ENGAGE programmes are funded.
Indeed, the Minister of Justice provided an update to her Executive colleagues just this afternoon to say that match funding has been provided by the UK Government for the Tackling Paramilitarism scheme. There seems to have been some progress made on phase 2 of the Executive's programme in that area, which I welcome.
The Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme has become known as the "victims' payment scheme", but it is important that it be called what it is, which is the "permanent disablement payment scheme". Although the scheme sits with the Executive Office, responsibility for its delivery rests with the Department of Justice. An allocation has been made to the Executive Office for the implementation arrangements for the scheme, which will allow the Justice Department to continue with that work, but funding for payments has not yet been agreed. The Committee has been keen to ensure that there is no undue delay in getting payments to victims and has been pushing for updates on progress to secure the funding for some time. Members will be aware that discussions took place very recently with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Committee will continue to monitor the issue.
On New Decade, New Approach, the bid that I mentioned for 153 additional police officers, which is in line with the three-year business plan to get us to the target of 7,500, is part of a £16·6 million bid for funding towards the NDNA commitments that fall to the Department of Justice. That was made part of the unique funding exercise in November. That bid also included funding for commitments relating to tackling paramilitarism; the implementation of the Gillen review of serious sexual offences; and speeding up justice by reducing delay, which is an issue that has not been adequately tackled since the devolution of policing and justice back in 2010 or, indeed, before that. The Committee will be keen to see the outcome of that funding exercise, as it is important that those issues be progressed in a timely manner.
A range of other funding issues and concerns was raised. I will not go into them in detail today, but they include future COVID-19 requirements, legacy-related issues, European Union exit and tackling paramilitarism. The Committee is also aware that the Department is reviewing its priorities in the context of the Budget. The Committee will focus on all those issues as part of its scrutiny in the 2021-22 Budget cycle and its wider scrutiny of the Department, its agencies and NDPBs. In addition, the Committee has a heavy legislative programme and will want to ensure that there is adequate funding identified and committed to ensure that the legislation can be fully and properly implemented.
The Committee recognises that this is a challenging budget position for the Department of Justice. Departmental officials have advised that some difficult decisions will have to be faced, considering the magnitude of the pressures that the Department faces. The Committee expects there to be ongoing engagement and to be kept fully informed to help ensure that the Department’s budget is maximised and that key priority areas are funded to deliver effective outcomes across the justice sector.
To conclude my remarks in my capacity as Committee Chairman, I will say that the Committee noted its disappointment about the time that it was afforded to undertake proper scrutiny of the 2021-22 draft Budget. The Chair of the Finance Committee touched on that earlier. The Assembly and its Committees have an important scrutiny role, and it should not be compromised by delays at Executive level. I appreciate that the politics of Executive-level agreement can sometimes be frustrating for all of us.
Speaking in an individual capacity as an MLA for Lagan Valley, I will draw out a couple of points on the overall Budget picture. It is important that we consider the context in which the Chancellor will make a Budget statement, in which he will outline a lot of the challenges that the Treasury faces. We recognise that, as a result of the COVID-19 situation, the United Kingdom has borrowed £270 billion. That presents a challenge for the United Kingdom as a whole, and it is in that context that there could be implications for Stormont.
We depend significantly on the subvention and the Barnett consequentials when it comes to taking decisions, and that informs our Executive's Budget. The deteriorating public finances at a UK-wide level raise concerns not just for this financial year but for future financial years. What will that mean for the Executive and for the citizens whom we represent?
As public finances are squeezed at a UK-wide level, I have concerns about what is coming down the tracks for the Executive. The Executive wanted to deliver for all our people, and being starved of the finances to do that creates, in and of itself, political tension. I appeal to the UK Government to recognise the politics of this place. We need continued financial support to make this place work. That does not mean that we duck difficult decisions. We need to take on a job of work to do that, but financial pressures can create political tensions, and that does not make the work of moving this country forward any easier. Indeed, it makes it much more difficult.
In my view, the UK-wide position makes the UK as a whole more vulnerable. We are more susceptible to global challenges as we become financially dependent on other financial institutions and, indeed, other countries. That presents a threat to the position of the United Kingdom as a whole. Think about the value of sterling and how it will impact on our citizens. There are concerns about interest rates and what they could mean. When interest rates go up, that will impact on people's mortgage repayments. Our people will suffer as a result.
(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)
If income tax levels are frozen and do not increase in line with inflation, the lowest paid in our society, who currently do not pay tax up to the £12,500 limit, will be hit hardest, as well as those further up the various tax bands. That will limit the money that we have to spend to support economic activity in our own country. So, the UK-wide position is very relevant, and we need to be alert to it.
With the levelling-up funding, there is an issue with respecting devolution. When the UK Government announce funding schemes — the levelling-up funding is a new significant sum of money — we need to defend the role of devolved institutions in this place, in Scotland and in Wales. I put a question mark over the powers being retained in this area of funding if we are not to be given them and if London retains control of them. That raises a question for us to consider.
I have some sympathy, however, with the UK Government and the decisions that they are taking because we look at the way that the infrastructure project was greeted by some, even in this House. We want to see greater infrastructure links connecting us to Great Britain, and I, for one, will not dismiss the ambition to create a bridge or a tunnel because I think that great opportunities would come from it. We need greater strategic vision for our infrastructure projects. Important though they are — and I campaign on them — infrastructure cannot be just about fixing potholes and resurfacing country roads. We need to elevate our eyes to a much greater strategic ambition. On the one hand, I put a question mark over an approach that may not respect devolution, but I understand the potential concerns at a UK-wide level that a levelling-up funding scheme for strategic projects does not achieve that kind of aspiration.
There will be continued pressure with COVID spend for the next financial year. The road map to recovery has been published by the Executive, and we want to see this country reopen as quickly and as safely as possible, but we have to bear in mind the financial realities and what influence they will have. We do not have infinite funding. We have had huge amounts of funding from London for COVID-19 spend in this financial year. I have some sympathy for the Finance Minister and the Executive in that some of that money came very late, and that makes it difficult to get it back out.
However, in the next financial year, what we can do to support businesses, if they are going to stay closed, will be heavily reliant on what other financial assistance we are going to get from the UK Government. If the furlough scheme is extended, as has been trailed, to the end of June, and the Executive are still going to have businesses closed, the position will be untenable. The Executive will be unable to afford to bankroll a furlough scheme. We cannot relax our restrictions in isolation to the financial reality of the support we have had from the UK Government. Furlough is one of the biggest support structures for our businesses. Had that not been there, imagine the devastation. Tens of thousands of people have been able to stay in employment, albeit some have had to take a reduction. However, if the furlough scheme ends and the Executive keep businesses closed, the position will not be tenable. That has to inform the decision-making process. When we look at the variables that have been announced today, around health, economy and community, it is very clear, in my view, what needs to happen if we do not have the financial support to bankroll the furlough scheme.
The rates holiday has been a lifeline for a lot of businesses in Northern Ireland. Going into the next financial year, rates will continue to be a significant pressure for businesses. I know that the Finance Minister is alert to the need to support businesses when it comes to the payment of rates. I pay tribute to my own council area, Lisburn and Castlereagh, which struck a 0% rates increase. In real terms, that is a cut when we look at inflation. I note that the Finance Minister's own patch, Newry and Mourne, was not able to reach the same position. It may be that we had more influence in helping our councillors get to the right place on that one. I commend the 0% rates increase in my council area.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. On the topic of rates, it is vital that the intervention continues, particularly with the uncertainty as to how long businesses will remain closed. Hopefully, the Minister will provide some clarification on that in his response. However, given how the pandemic has affected everyone's lives, right across Northern Ireland, does the Member agree that it would have been very good and positive for every council to take a similar approach to the Member's council, in striking a 0% rate. I am proud to say that my colleagues in Derry and Strabane did so last night.

Paul Givan: I was not alert to that one. Well done on getting that in. I must be careful because I am not sure what other councils have done and what my colleagues have been able to achieve in other council areas. However, it is important to get as low a rates increase as possible, in line with what the Executive are doing. I know that the Finance Minister has been corresponding with councils in respect of that.
However, this raises the issue of how fair the rates system is. Look at our town centres, and think of the impact on our retail and hospitality sectors. Providing support for rates will be very important. There is a gross unfairness, in my view, when it comes to levying rates, in the online activities of businesses. People refer to it as the "Amazon tax". If ever a global organisation has benefited from COVID-19, it is Amazon. Yet we seem to be unable to find a taxation system that properly ensures that Amazon contributes to society. That is something that the UK Government need to do. I do not know whether our Executive are able to look it and find a way to levy an appropriate rates system on online transactions. However, continuing to place the burden on physical premises, at a time when we are moving to online and remote business, is an unfair allocation of the financial burden for our public services. It is something we need to tackle.
Finally, I want to mention a constituency case.
I do so to provide an example at a time when we are trying to maximise financial resources.

Pat Catney: I thank the Member for giving way. I am off drink for Lent. If the Member does not hurry up, he is going to put me back on it.
[Laughter.]

Paul Givan: I would hate for the Member to break his vows for Lent. I will get to this example of providing financial support to a community organisation, and the Member might want to make an intervention and commend the community group when he gets an opportunity.
Often, as elected representatives, we have groups coming to us because they are unable to provide their own financial wherewithal or resources to projects, and they expect government to provide 100% funding. Others are able to bring their own resources. Ballymacash Sports Academy, which is in the constituency that I share with Mr Catney, raised £112,000 through a community investment fund. Local businesses and individual communities bought in to a new model, which the academy was able to bring to funders. The Department for Communities was one funder, and we had the Minister, Deirdre Hargey, at the facility. It was able to provide support for the first phase of an over-£1 million project to deliver a new sports facility as well as support for the second phase, which it is in now. That community investment was able to unlock central government funding, and other sources of funding then came together. Now we are into the second phase and are asking the local authority to provide additional financial resource, and we will likely go back to the Department for Communities.
A model that Departments can look at is that kind of community buy-in. When organisations can provide their own financial support from the community, a project is more likely to succeed because the community is invested. I would like to see the Executive explore further what opportunity there is for all the Departments to capitalise on that kind of community investment support. I commend that organisation for the tremendous work that it has been doing in Ballymacash. I am sure that Mr Catney will break his Lent when its social club gets to open again. On that, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will conclude.

Christopher Stalford: Knowing the Member for as long as I have, I am surprised that he did not go on for another 20 minutes to spite Mr Catney, but, mercifully, he did not.

Pat Sheehan: I am surprised that he did not go on for another two hours.
[Laughter.]
I was going to go down to the canteen to have my dinner.
Yesterday, I referenced the hope and expectation that the NDNA agreement brought last year, particularly in the British Government and their responsibilities to the people here. Pledges to invest in our public services and commitments to multi-year Budgets, which would provide stability and allow Ministers to plan for the future, have disappeared like snow off a ditch. The British Government have reneged again on their promises and commitments. Quelle surprise.
The Finance Minister is in the unenviable position of delivering another Budget in the context of the global pandemic and all the difficulties that it provides, along with the previous 10 years of Tory austerity and, most likely, more to come. Once again, I put on record how grateful I am that we have a Finance Minister who works on behalf of our most vulnerable citizens, workers and families and who recognises the need to prioritise investment in children and young people and their futures, despite the limited resources that are available to him and his Department.
At critical junctures over the last 12 months, the Finance Minister has allocated significant sums to the Department of Education for its response to the pandemic. I commend the Minister for his allocations that supported children with special educational needs — £10 million was given to that — and funding for holiday hunger, which amounted to £30·6 million. I mentioned yesterday the campaign of the Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford and how that pressurised the Tory Government into providing funding for meals outside the school terms.
Fair play to Marcus Rashford; he should be highly commended for the campaign that he ran. He was able to use his celebrity position to bring pressure to bear on the Tory Government. He comes from a less than affluent background and was able to empathise with young children from a similar background who were suffering because they usually depend on free school meals during term time, and they were left without in the holidays. As I mentioned yesterday, Marcus Rashford got a gong for that from the Queen. I am no great supporter of the honours system, but it has to be acknowledged and applauded that he got that.
Marcus Rashford's campaign received widespread media coverage for quite a long time, yet here we were well ahead of the curve. The Minister of Finance had already provided funding for holiday hunger, and it hardly got a mention. This concerns all of us in the Chamber and all parties, because the media are often very critical of what is done here, particularly in the Executive, and of what steps are taken to alleviate particular difficulties in society. Here was one case where, across the water, the fact that a footballer had embarrassed the Tories into providing funding for this issue got massive publicity. Here, when the Executive decided to provide for that and the Finance Minister allocated the funding, it hardly got a mention. I suppose that that is what we have come to expect from some elements of the media here.
Of course, we all know that disadvantaged kids will suffer disproportionately in all this. It is the kids who do not have access to proper IT devices who will fall behind in their learning, and there is greater incidence of mental health issues in disadvantaged communities, and children will also suffer in that respect.
I have to say that, without the global pandemic to contend with, our education system was already on the brink of a financial crisis. Starved of investment for 10 years as a result of Tory austerity, the system was facing up to a £400 million shortfall, and, in New Decade, New Approach, the British Government committed to investing in our schools to ensure that they would once again have access to sustainable core budgets. Unfortunately, with the resources that they have provided, it will not be possible to achieve that, which is particularly concerning in the context of COVID and all the disruption that that has brought. Extended breaks in classroom learning have been difficult for young people and will no doubt have profound consequences. Our schools and teachers desperately need the necessary resources so that they are equipped to begin the process of rebuilding their pupils' mental health and well-being and of supporting their education recovery.
I also mentioned yesterday that Professor Siobhán O'Neill, the mental health champion, gave evidence to the Committee some weeks ago, and she agreed with the assessment that a tsunami is coming at us with the mental health and well-being of our children in schools. It has also been one of the strongest arguments for the reopening of schools that the mental health and well-being of young children is being damaged, and we need to get them back. They need that interaction with other children and the normal development that happens in schools.
I have said in the Committee, and I say it here again, that, given the mental health and well-being difficulties that our children and young people are facing, the Education Minister needs to make a serious and ambitious bid for some of the COVID funding that can be carried over into next year. He needs to put in place a coherent and integrated cross-departmental strategy to deal with all of the well-being issues. He needs to involve the Health Department and, probably, the Department for Communities. He needs to bring on board the community and voluntary sector, which has a lot of expertise in not just the field of education but well-being and mental health.
In my constituency, the West Belfast Partnership Board is involved in many schemes that assist, in particular, children and young people who may be falling behind in their learning, including those sitting on borderline passes in important subjects such as maths and English. Many who have been involved in the Education Committee will be aware that, every Easter, in St Mary's University College, the partnership runs schools for children who are sitting on a borderline C/D in maths or English. There were difficulties last year because of the pandemic, of course, and there may be again this year. English and maths are important for getting into university and applying for jobs, so those were identified as important subjects. The pass rate among the kids who attend those Easter schools is well above 80%. Organisations such as that need to be involved in any sort of strategy that the Minister puts in place.
We need some sign from the Minister that he is even thinking about a strategy and that he will make a bid. There is £300 million sitting there, about £200 million of which is resource funding, so he cannot dither. Dithering has been a characteristic of his tenure in office so far. He needs to make a move now.
At a time when we are severely restricted in what we can do financially, we must prioritise the mental health and well-being of our children and young people. That must be the priority as schools reopen. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister, after the lockdown last spring, put in place the Engage programme to help kids who had missed out on learning. However, the money that was allocated to that and the nature of the project will not cut the mustard in the face of all the problems that we will face in the time ahead. We need to equip our schools with the resources that they need to support our children, whether those are additional counselling services, well-being initiatives or other supports. Of course, sporting organisations, such as Ulster Rugby, the GAA, the IFA and so on, can also be part of the strategy.
The point has been made that some Ministers need to take greater responsibility for how they spend their budget in these difficult financial circumstances. It was disappointing, therefore, to read the Audit Office report on special educational needs, which found that, despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Department of Education and the Education Authority have spent on supporting some of our most vulnerable children, neither could demonstrate value for money. That is unacceptable.
The waiting times for children being assessed for statements of special educational needs are unacceptable. Those children and their parents are not getting the proper support that they need within the timescale that they should expect.

Daniel McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way and welcome his recent appointment to the Education Committee. There are many challenges. The Member has recognised the huge crisis that faces SEN children and their families. Does the Member agree that it was not so much about a lack of resource or financing as about a real lack of leadership? There was a deliberate attempt in the EA to cover up its failures as opposed to facing down and addressing them to help those children. In fact, the system failed here.

Pat Sheehan: Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. The Audit Office referenced hundreds of millions of pounds going into special educational needs but the children and their parents not getting value for money. That is a disgrace, and it needs to be resolved. It is a problem that has been there for a long time. Leadership is needed. The Minister needs to give leadership. The Education Authority also needs to stand up and take responsibility for the shortcomings that have been present in that organisation. Ministers need to be responsible and accountable for the large sums of money that they are allocated. In this case, the Education Minister must also provide an effective and strategic response.
I referred to the inadequate core budgets that many of our schools are trying to operate with. Many of those schools are doing so in substandard and crumbling buildings. That is particularly true for the Irish-medium sector, where many schools have remained in so-called temporary accommodation for over 20 years despite the sector growing rapidly in that time. Children deserve better than inadequately funded schools and Portakabin accommodation. The Irish-medium sector also needs to be adequately funded for the unique challenges that it faces, not just in general terms but in the context of the pandemic. When the sector asked for signage that was being provided to every other school, it was told that it would have to translate it itself. Only last week, I had complaints from stakeholders in the Irish-medium sector about documentation and other written material that had clearly been translated from English to Irish on Google Translate. It was just mumbo jumbo and made absolutely no sense. If someone tells me that that is value for money in some way, I will tell them that they are talking through their hat, because that will have to be done again. It is totally unacceptable. It is an insult to the Irish-medium sector and an insult to the children who are in those schools. I speak as a parent of two children who are in the Irish-medium sector.
To conclude, I again express my thanks to the Finance Minister for the initiatives that he has taken forward over the past year. I look forward to what will be a challenging year. I hope that we get our priorities right and ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are taken care of.

Andrew Muir: I speak on the Budget Bill as the Alliance Party's finance spokesperson. In many ways, the 2021-22 Budget outcome is disappointing for Northern Ireland.
However, until we have an Executive that are united in tackling Northern Ireland's underlying structural problems, the Departments will always struggle to meet their inescapable pressures. I am disappointed that the departmental expenditure limits for next year are essentially flat. The Budget does little to alleviate the financial stress that Departments have felt for many years and that has now been made so much more acute as a result of the historic economic downturn. Better news, however, is the nearly 7% increase in the conventional capital budget. However, I remain concerned about how effectively Departments can spend the capital funding that they receive, and I will come to that issue later.
Since the onset of the pandemic, the Alliance Party has consistently called for the Minister to take advantage of the ultra-low interest rates and to borrow additional funds. I therefore welcome plans to draw down £140 million of RRI borrowing. Worryingly, however, it remains unclear exactly how much EU funding Northern Ireland will lose this financial year because of Brexit. I ask the Minister of Finance to provide an update on that key issue.
I am also concerned that there is a lack of detail regarding how the Executive will respond to the long-term economic impact of the pandemic, particularly in reskilling and getting people back into employment. Over the past few days, two of Northern Ireland's biggest lenders — Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland — have announced the closure of dozens of branches across Ireland. No doubt that has been accelerated by the pandemic, as more and more people move to digital banking. That is exactly the sort of scenario where the Executive need to ensure that a comprehensive plan is in place to offer retraining and reskilling —.

Christopher Stalford: Mr Muir, I am sorry to interrupt you. This is new for me to ask from the Chair, but are you prepared to give way to Mr McCrossan?

Andrew Muir: I understand that I can do that, but I did not know whether you did interventions through StarLeaf. That is fine.

Christopher Stalford: I am happy to facilitate Mr McCrossan on this occasion.

Daniel McCrossan: Thank you to Mr Muir. I have to say that being surrounded by eight of you is quite strange. Mr Muir, thanks for taking an intervention.
You are right about the banking situation: the closures have been accelerated by COVID-19, because we are more dependent than ever on the online links to our accounts. However, there are rural communities, such as mine in west Tyrone, where many people will not have that luxury because broadband provision is so bad. Are the banks not just being opportunistic by using the situation to their advantage in order to abandon rural communities such as those in parts of west Tyrone, as opposed to putting the interests of the loyal communities whom they serve first? Does the Member agree?

Andrew Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention. I do agree. Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland need to reconsider their decision to close the branches, because that will have a devastating impact not just on rural areas but on town and city centres. The Executive need to respond to that significant decision. They also need to have a comprehensive plan to offer retraining, reskilling and re-employment opportunities for those who have lost their jobs. The trend that we are seeing in banking, where certain jobs disappear and people in Northern Ireland lose out, will only increase as restrictions ease and support payments taper off, such as the inevitable ending of the furlough scheme.
I note with concern the Department for Communities' response to the Budget consultation that it may not have sufficient resources to deliver the support needed, if, as it expects, there is a further increase in unemployment, which will have a particularly acute impact on the long-term unemployed and minorities. That is an extremely worrying assessment from the Department for Communities, and I would be grateful if the Minister of Finance could provide us with his response.
The Alliance Party welcomes the Budget's commitment to freezing rates next year and the Minister's commitment to further rates relief for the businesses worst affected by the pandemic, but, as I outlined yesterday, we need to go further, with an independent review of the non-domestic rating system to take the burden off bricks-and-mortar businesses, alongside the fulfilment of the commitment to establish regional hubs for civil servants. Those are two simple but important ways in which we can look to support regional towns and cities across Northern Ireland as we strive to emerge from the pandemic.
There is still considerable uncertainty regarding our overall budgetary envelope for the forthcoming financial year. We await to hear whether any additional funding via Barnett consequentials will be forthcoming following the UK Budget at Westminster tomorrow.
The fact that the UK Budget is tomorrow, with more Barnett consequentials perhaps likely, while we are today debating a Budget that has been drafted without any insight into what Her Majesty's Treasury's plans are, seriously impacts on budgetary planning in Northern Ireland.
The Alliance Party continues to call for the introduction of multi-year Budgets so that Departments can plan their spending on a more long-term basis, yet, in spite of disappointing and short-term resource allocations for this year, the unwillingness from a number of Ministers to tackle the structural issues in Northern Ireland remains the primary reason that our finances are in a mess. Since the restoration of power-sharing, the largest parties in the Executive have continued to behave as if it were business as usual. If you do as you have always done, you will get what you have always got. Although Departments are struggling to meet inescapable pressures, we are seemingly content to continue not to address the cost of division in our society, which is estimated to be at least half a billion pounds annually. Those are sectarian costs: costs for policing, segregated housing and the duplication of services, from hospitals to schools to leisure facilities. A united Executive could and should bring forward a strategy to tackle division head-on in order to bring down those costs. The main parties, however, are seemingly happy to sit on their hands and let things carry on as per usual. The cost of division is not just about the extra money that we spend to maintain a divided society but about how sectarianism hinders our ability to attract highly skilled talent into Northern Ireland; how it drives away some of the best and brightest to seek their future elsewhere; and how the threat of violence discourages business investment. We know what needs to be done to achieve structural change in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office's recent report painted a bleak picture of talent management processes in our Civil Service. That is hindering our capacity to deliver on public service transformation. On health, although the focus this year has been on the immediate challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, we can no longer afford to let the Bengoa report sit gathering dust on ministerial shelves. Our waiting lists are a national disgrace, and it is long past time for the Health Minister to enact the necessary reforms to change that. The list of overdue reforms to public service delivery is lengthy. On top of that, the Executive have failed to produce an investment strategy for economic development in Northern Ireland. We are still waiting for details of a fiscal council, which is a crucial institution for enhancing the scrutiny of public finances in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the Executive must bring forward proposals for an independent infrastructure commission, a body that could publish a 30-year investment strategy for Northern Ireland and hold the Executive to account for its delivery.
In conclusion, although the Budget outcome for Northern Ireland Departments as a whole is disappointing, and although a cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over the forthcoming financial year, there is much that a number of Ministers have failed to do, and are continuing to fail to do, to tackle the problems that we are facing. The Alliance Party will continue to fight for and champion policies that tackle sectarianism, that support public services and the economy and that improve the lives of all people in Northern Ireland.

Robin Newton: I rise as a mere Back-Bencher and as a member of the Communities and Education Committees to make some comments. Others who have spoken before me have taken a very global look at the matter of budgeting, budgeting strategy and budget allocations. They have talked about the time, or the lack of time, that we have had to scrutinise the Budget this year. I am not going to do that, because I would like to drill down a bit into the two Departments that I scrutinise through sitting on Committees. I pay tribute to my party colleague Paula Bradley, the Chair of the Committee for Communities, first, for the leadership that she has provided over the past year and, secondly, for her presentation today, in which she outlined the difficulties that the Communities Department will face over the incoming year.
I say that not to be in any way critical of any of the officials in the Department, because they have faced real challenges over the past year and have not been found wanting.
It has been a difficult year, and I believe that the year to come will be difficult. It does not matter who the Minister of Finance was at any stage in the past few years, but whoever it is will face real challenges. I do not think that it is right, though, as has been the case with a few Members, to blame everything on Tory austerity. It is important that we manage the Departments and the finances allocated to them in the most effective manner. Therefore, the Minister of a Department, whoever it may be and whatever the Department, is responsible for the governance of the Department, for the finance allocated to it, and for the effective use of the moneys allocated for its various projects. There is much that we can do to help ourselves. It is not always about Tory austerity policies.
I have mentioned this issue before, but, for the purposes of the debate, it is worth mentioning it again. It is important how money is managed in Departments, and guidelines are laid down for its allocation, management, effective use and monitoring to ensure that outcomes are provided in Departments by that investment. With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will read out a few sentences from a Treasury report, 'Improving Spending Control':
"Departments, devolved administrations, and their Arms Length Bodies will be expected to monitor and manage information about spending effectively, including improving the skills needed, in order to help them deliver their spending plans".
They will be required to share that information with the Treasury on a regular and consistent basis.
"Departments that demonstrate excellent financial management will be given greater freedoms to manage their own resources",
while those with bad management will be subject to more Treasury control.
The report continues:
"The exact requirements for each department will be agreed with the Treasury, but will, at a minimum, include accurate information on actual and planned spend"
that must be shared with the Treasury "on a monthly basis", and that expenditure information is frequently required, as:
"Departments should ensure that forecasts are based on their best information".
It is not often that I agree with Pat Sheehan, but I do have to agree with an expression that he used. Ministers do need to take accountability; Ministers do need to give leadership. I agree with him on that.
In the Finance Minister's document, in which he outlines his draft Budget, he tells us that the Department for Communities recently launched its building inclusive communities 2020-2025 strategy, which sets out how the Department will work across government. It is true that the Department did launch the strategy, and departmental officials came to the Committee to outline it. However, there were no specific and measurable targets, no long-term goals, and no points that one could have measured targets against in being achievable, realistic or time-based.
As a follow-up to that, I wrote to the Minister for Communities about the effectiveness of her plan, and I asked her when the measurable targets in her five-year 'Building Inclusive Communities' strategy document would be confirmed. The Minister was courteous enough to reply to me on 21 December. She said:
"Delivery of the Building Inclusive Communities 2020-25 strategy will be measured through the Department's business plans, which my officials are currently engaged in developing. My officials will attend the Communities Committee on 25 February 2021."
However, the officials did not arrive at the Committee on 25 February.
We have a document, but we cannot use it to hold the Minister to account. I agree with Pat Sheehan that we need to see leadership.
I want to turn to another area. The Minister and the Department for Communities have responsibility for the administration of sport and promoting a culture of lifelong enjoyment and success in sport. That is their function and, generally speaking, they do that through arm's-length bodies. In 2011, £36·2 million was allocated by the Executive for the subregional stadia programme for soccer, on the basis of it being a priority spend in the next comprehensive spending review.
The Communities Minister's consultation started in November 2015 and concluded in February 2016. For some reason — I am not sure that anyone knows what it is — the Minister was not happy with that consultation, and a second consultation was undertaken. So, from 2011 to now, in March 2021, no money has been allocated for the subregional stadia programme for soccer, despite the fact that many clubs, which had hoped that their bids would be successful, engaged professionals to make drawings, engaged consultants to draw up strategies for their club and spent their money in the hope that the money that was allocated in 2011 would come to them, and they did all the necessary preparations. So, I agree with Pat that we need leadership from Ministers.
I want to turn to the other Committee on which I sit, which is the Education Committee. My colleague Paul Frew reminded me this morning that in making his bids for additional money the Education Minister was less than 50% successful. We regard education as a major priority, and we have talked about the need for a successful education system, yet the bids were less than 50% successful.
I want to pay tribute to our teachers who, over the past year, have done such a phenomenal job.
They have been innovative in how they have dealt with problems, reconstructed how they deliver the curriculum to children and engaged with parents to support them and provide them with packs and so on. They have done a phenomenal job. You have only to go on to the internet to look at some of the work that is being put out to see how school principals, boards of governors and teachers have approached the difficulties. I also pay tribute to the Minister for his initiative, first of all, in addressing underachievement and secondly, in the review of our education system.
There is no doubt that, as schools return, there is potential for teachers to experience aspects of school life that they have never faced before. I have not seen a survey for Northern Ireland, so I will refer to a survey of 3,000 teachers and head teachers in England. The educational researchers who carried out the study identified four particular areas where they anticipate problems. Ninety-eight per cent of teachers stated that their pupils are, on average, three months behind with the curriculum. So, 98% of those teachers believed that their pupils have lost, on average, three months' learning over the past year. Twenty-one per cent of teachers believed that boys are further behind than girls. We in Northern Ireland know all about boys' underachievement and their having to play catch-up at a later stage. The researchers also found that the learning gap between poorer pupils and those from better-off communities has widened by 46%. Fifty-three per cent of teachers in schools in deprived areas said that their pupils are at least four months behind with the curriculum compared with only 15% of teachers in schools in better-off, more affluent areas. If that information and study are correct, there is a big piece of work to be done in the months ahead.
I agree with Pat Sheehan in another area: the return journey to school is vital, although my emphasis is not the same as his. The return to school has to have an agreed route, and it must be recognised, which it is, I believe, around the Committee table, that, as the Education Minister, Assembly and Committee plot a way forward, it cannot be done by the Minister alone and there must be support for him and the leadership that, I believe, he will show as schools return. Bear in mind that, when he made bids for extra money, less than 50% of those bids were successful. The return to school will require additional funding above and beyond what is in his budget. It will require the Finance Minister to step up to the plate if we agree that it is important to find a route for our children to return successfully to school.
Indeed, the Health Minister will also be required to play a part in the return to school, and he will need financial support to do that.
However, the Health Minister has specialist experience on mental health issues at his disposal, and it is anticipated that work will need to be carried out with pupils. There are those who work in our communities, staff with specialist skills and contacts based in councils, presumably, who work with educationalists in the Youth Service and can do a joined-up exercise. Bear it in mind that we have outdoor facilities that are second to none and have not been used since last March when they were mothballed. A joined-up approach is needed if we are serious about working with our schools, principals and boards of governors to help our children to return.
We need to be aware of children's overall physical and mental health. We need to be assured that they can engage in play and leisure with their peers and take part in physical activities. It is not all about learning and achieving. It is about learning and achieving, but it is wider than that. It is also about the economic potential for the children and their environmental well-being. That always needs to be based on a school/home partnership supported by the Assembly.
Reference was made to our special needs children. Around the Committee table, there is great empathy for the special schools leadership group. Not long after the Committee was formed, I had what I now regard as the privilege of being asked to attend an informal meeting of the special schools leadership group, which a number of other Committee members also attended. I came away from the meeting feeling quite disturbed as I tried to understand how they performed their role in educating children with special needs. It is not an exaggeration to say that they were operating on a shoestring. They were meeting very challenging conditions without the support that they deserved.
I am indebted to my colleague William Humphrey, who chaired the Public Accounts Committee, which called for an urgent overhaul of the system. It was taking a year for a child's needs to be identified. When senior officials from the Education Authority attended the Committee, I thought, "How can it be that we were operating with five different computer systems across Northern Ireland?", if my memory serves me right. We were trying to combine an IT system with a paper system. Because the Department of Education needed the cooperation of parents over the school holidays and cooperation with the health authorities, things nearly closed down over the holidays. For two months nothing happened to identify the special needs of the child. I am sure that every MLA has had parents in their office pleading because they cannot get an assessment of their children's needs. When you contacted the Education Authority — I hope that it will get better — you felt as if you were an inconvenience. I think that that matter will be put right. It is a matter that must be put right. We need to support the principals, teachers and staff in general in our special needs schools.
I will move on to another area of special needs. The Minister recognises that there is certainly a need for an additional school for special needs children. We have had representation from the principals of special schools, who have identified the need for another special school to address the needs of children. There is a greater number of pupils in the special schools than there ought to be. I am not saying that that is the case in all of them, but it is certainly the case in some. We had targeted the Belfast area for a special needs school, which was promised, I understand, 10 years ago but has not gone anywhere. The parents and pupils need our support and need that investment. The ethos must be that, whether in a mainstream school or a special needs school, every child has the opportunity to succeed.
Some famous quotations provide the right approach to education. It is not about the cost of education. In 1997, Tony Blair, as he was launching a manifesto, used the words "Education, education, education". That stuck, and it became a major factor in his success at that election. It is about education, education, education, but it is also about investment, investment, investment in education. It should not be seen as a cost. It was Benjamin Franklin who said that investment in education always pays the highest returns, and Mitt Romney said:
"Education is the investment our generation makes in the future."
I will make a few remarks about the overall concept, activity and mechanisms of budgeting. I agree with what others have said. In my days on Belfast City Council, when it came to setting the rate, I argued that we should never set a rate for a year. I said that we could agree the rate for one year but should know what it was likely to be the next year and the year after that. I suspect that, if we do not move to multi-year Budgets and multi-year prioritising, the Minister will face exactly the same challenges as he faces this year.
The parties opposite need to stop talking purely about Tory austerity. There is scope. If the £36·2 million were released for the building of soccer stadia and so on, imagine how many jobs that would create. How many people would be employed? What about the businesses that would exist around it? We would generate extremely good income for certain areas.
That is what we are supposed to be doing.
Significant headroom is provided in the spring Supplementary Estimates to allow for unallocated spending to be absorbed by Departments on the basis of future Executive decisions. I hope that, if I am right, one of the areas that we will look at is "investment, investment, investment" in education and that we will support our teachers as all of us around the Chamber say that we want to.

Linda Dillon: My contribution will be short. Hopefully, I will not delay you for too long. Thank you very much for bringing me in by StarLeaf.
I will speak as Sinn Féin's spokesperson on justice. I will not go into an awful lot of detail. I spoke yesterday about some of the challenges for policing and the Probation Board in particular, and for staff numbers in the Prison Service. Those were all talked about yesterday, and I do not intend to go into them again.
One of the issues that I want to pick up that comes under justice, although it is certainly cross-Executive, is the permanent disablement payment scheme. I thank Mike Nesbitt for his contribution on that. He really brought it down to where it should be: the humanity and the humanising of the subject. That is where we all need to be on it. Whilst we can bat back and forth about where the money is for that in the Budget, the reality is that it is a massive cost and the money is not in the Budget. The Finance Minister — all the Executive, actually — have been very clear about that. However, that is an issue for us politically to battle with the NIO and the British Government. It is not
[Inaudible]
who are out there waiting on payments to have that battle.
A number of Members said that those individuals do not care where the money comes from. That is not true. In fact, that could not be further from the truth. The victims and survivors that I have met through the victims' forum and all the different groups and organisations that represent victims have all been very clear that they care about where the money comes from. They do not want to see it taken from the Departments of Education, Health or Communities or the organisations that are helping them and their families at this time. As I said, that is not a battle for them to have. We need to take the nonsense and hypocrisy out of the issue, address it as a united Executive and Assembly and bring our case to the NIO and the Secretary of State. They widened the scope and increased the cost of the scheme. Therefore, they have to take responsibility for it. We need to get real and stop the grandstanding and the nonsense. It is unfair to the victims to put them in a position where we are saying to them, "You do not care where the money comes from". That is simply not true.
The Department of Justice has a responsibility to administer the scheme, and the Justice Minister has united with the Finance Minister and the Executive Office to meet the British Secretary of State to discuss it. I hope that we will get a positive response. Last week at the Committee, I asked for an update from the Justice Minister on where we are on this issue. Hopefully, we will see movement and be able to progress that issue and to give some assurance to the victims that they will get paid whenever their applications are processed.
We have had an uplift in the budget for the Office of the Police Ombudsman for historical and legacy investigations. However, in the wider context, the Budget is severely impacted by the fact that we have not progressed the Stormont House mechanisms. The failure to progress those means that the British Government are also not providing the money that was to come with them. That is having a massive impact on our Justice budget, because the PSNI is effectively picking up the issue without any additional funding from the Stormont House mechanisms. We need to address that again; it needs to be dealt with. The British Government need to move forward with that: to bring forward the legislation, to put in place the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) and to remove not only the financial responsibility but the toxicity of the legacy issue from current-day policing.
I want to speak briefly as an MLA for Mid Ulster about the issues that impact us. I want to pick up on what the previous Member said about education and the Department for Communities' issues that we want to see funding and finance for. There was a bit of hypocrisy in talking about councils not raising the rate and then asking for money for a sports stadium and all the other things that we want. He also talked about not pointing to Tory austerity. We will not point to Tory austerity then. We will not ask the British Government for any money. We will just say that we want money for everything, but we do not know where the money is coming from, and we will not ask the British Government for any more money. I do not get the logic behind that kind of conversation. Again, we could unite on some of those issues, because the Member is right: investing in sports stadia, education and businesses will all bring money in. It is investment for the future, and that is what we need to do, but, as the saying goes, "It takes money to make money".
We are not asking to get the same money forever and a day, but we are asking for investment to improve our chances of increasing our income and making a more sustainable economy going forward. We will have a better budgeting system as a result. We will get no argument from the Minister about the need for multi-year Budgets. We are agreed right across the House on that issue. I have not heard one Member say that that is not where we want to be. We could not do it in our own homes, so I do not know how we can run the economy of our devolved institution without having multi-year Budgets. I know that the Finance Minister wants to get to that place.
There are a number of other issues. We can talk about roads and the lack of investment. I was disappointed that the Infrastructure Minister did not put in a bid, particularly for rural roads. I come from a large, rural constituency, and there are a number of issues.
I want to go back to the point about the bridge. A number of Members have talked about how it would be great, saying that we would be linked to Scotland and asking what is bad about that. I do not have any negative comments on that, but I will say this: I tried to get a bus from Newry to Cookstown, and it took me five hours to do that journey. A 45-minute journey took five hours. Let us sort out the public transport here before we look at building bridges to other countries. I am not ruling it out. I am just asking us to use a bit of common sense. Let us put a proper rail and bus network in place here. I am sure that many rural villagers could tell us about their experiences of not being able to get a bus service to the nearest local town. A number of Members talked about access to banks and services. Many of our rural constituents do not have access to those services because they cannot get a bus. It is not because they do not have a bank in their village but because they cannot get to the nearest town, where there may well be a bank.
Let us look at all those issues with a wee bit of common sense and with an agreed and united approach.
A number of Members talked about having a united approach yet then quickly went on to talk about all the ways in which we can divide. Let us therefore genuinely have a united approach. Let us back our Finance Minister in his reasonable, sensible and logical asks of the British Government. Let us support him in those asks, instead of making the entire case for the British Government as to why they should not or will not give the money to the people here who deserve it. I would put those who are awaiting payment from the permanent disablement payment scheme at the top of that list.

Sinead McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The debate is primarily about the 2020-2021 Budget, but it is vital that we talk about the 2021-22 draft Budget.
Today, I seek to express my party's reservations about the lack of a sufficient strategy for the Northern Ireland economy and public services. I remain concerned about the lack of sufficient progress being made on the road to economic recovery. There is a seriously disjointed approach to spending, and that needs to be replaced with a new strategy and vision for a better economy post-COVID and post-Brexit. We need it to be matched by long-term Budgets and coherent preparation, not random handouts, chaotic planning and unashamed pushing of party political self-interest.
As the economy spokesperson for my party, I will concentrate my comments particularly on the budget issues for the Department for the Economy. Earlier, we heard concerns from the Economy Committee Chairperson about whether the allocations towards skills development are adequate. I share her concerns. The weakness of skills is perhaps the most pressing of all the challenges facing our economy. Let us consider where we are at. We are underfunding vocational training by about a quarter when compared with that in other countries. We have a much smaller university sector than that in the Republic of Ireland and in GB, and what we do have is underfunded. Meanwhile, we continue to have far too many pupils who leave school without the basic skills and qualifications needed to give them good jobs or provide them with the skills that our society needs in order to support local businesses to get bigger or attract inward investment. I agree with Robin Newton when he said that far too many of our school-leavers are set on a course that could lead to long-term unemployment. The scourge of our economy is economic inactivity.
Is the scale of the investment in skills development adequate to meet the challenges? Unless the Executive find substantial additional funding for skills development, then, no, it is not. I therefore urge the Executive to support new bids to improve our skills base, and I urge the Department for the Economy to face up to the scale of the problem that we have in our hands.
I will now speak as the MLA for Foyle. I put on record my concerns about the Minister for the Economy's comments about Ulster University's Magee and Coleraine campuses. They have caused absolute uproar in Derry. It is almost as if some MLAs want to revert to the 1960s. We thought that progress had been made with the New Decade, New Approach agreement and that provision at Magee had crossed the line. The agreement contained commitments that the Executive would expand university provision at Magee and bring forward proposals for the development and expansion of the Ulster University campus at Magee college, including the necessary increase in medical student numbers to realise the campus target of 10,000 students.
I do not see that in any plan in the draft Budget or in any future planning. The Economy Minister, according to her reply to my question for written answer last month, has unilaterally downgraded that commitment to the consideration of any expansion proposals for either the Coleraine or Magee campus.
That is not good enough. It is a solo run from the Minister, who is attempting to renege on commitments that were collectively entered into by her party's leadership along with the leaderships of other parties.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to highlight the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party supports building the graduate medical school at the Magee campus. Obviously, one of our biggest problems is trying to recruit and retain medical professionals, and anything that we can do to speed up the building of the medical school will be useful.

Sinead McLaughlin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am talking about the wider expansion to 10,000 students, but thank you for your support.
I stress that it should be obvious by now that Derry has, by a long way, the lowest higher-education student density of any city on these islands.
We have another challenge: the decline of our traditional commercial centres. That should be one of the major priorities for the Executive Office, which is leading on the high-street task force. That task force was announced —
[Interruption.]
Sorry, that is my phone; I beg your pardon. That task force was announced at the beginning of August last year, yet it met for the first time only last week. So much for treating our high streets as a priority. Reshaping our city and town centres will need vast sums of money as well as new ways of thinking about them. Traditional commercial centres have been left empty as a result of COVID, but the crisis has been building for years, with the growth of home shopping and internet banking. If ever we needed a reminder that we have crisis in our high streets, the announcement of branch closures by the Bank of Ireland yesterday was it. We need to make our city and town centres attractive places in which to live, work, study and have fun. They must have a future, and we will not be able to provide that without the necessary investment.
Despite the pandemic, the most intractable problem globally remains climate change. I am not convinced that Departments have fully taken on board just how difficult it will be to meet the net-zero carbon emissions target by 2050. If the draft Budget for next year is a guide, Departments are not taking it sufficiently seriously. Nor does it seem that they are working in partnership sufficiently, which is essential, given the cross-cutting nature of the problem with energy policy.
There is no reference to the green new deal, which was a commitment in New Decade, New Approach. When are we going to begin serious work on the massive retrofitting exercises needed to bring our homes to the level of energy efficiency needed to start the journey to a low-carbon future? Neither is there recognition of the scale of expenditure required to cut our society's carbon emissions and build an economy based on the renewable energy and low-emissions technologies. Compare that with the Scottish Government's commitment to invest over £2 billion over the next decade to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.
It is way past the time for us to keep doing the things that we have been doing. We have to be radical and radically reshape our expenditure profile and do things differently: invest in skills, invest in more infrastructure, invest in more green technologies and invest in the future.
It would be remiss of me to not bring a little dose of reality into this conversation. We are all aware that Northern Ireland is an unsustainable economic entity. We cannot pay our way, and have been unable to for many decades. We rely on a £10 billion a year subvention that just about keeps us afloat. The output of Northern Ireland today is far away from that of Northern Ireland in the 1920s, when it accounted for 80% of Ireland's exports, with Belfast the largest city on the island. Today, Northern Ireland exports £10 billion worth of goods while ROI exports £285 billion worth of goods.
The average income in the Republic of Ireland is £38,000 against the average income here, in Northern Ireland, of £22,000. That leads to the average spending power of Southerners to be almost twice that of Northerners. There is a serious differentiation between our two economies on this small island, and it always astounds me that the DUP refuses to acknowledge the economic failure and inefficiencies of our economic circumstance.
At this moment, I find it incredible that the DUP is so blinded by ideology that it refuses to acknowledge an economic recovery strategy that maximises the benefit from our protocol position at the crossroads of the European and UK markets, with particular opportunities in agri-food, life sciences and low-carbon transition. The failure to grasp that competitive economic advantage will no doubt go down as another missed opportunity for unionism and a failure of their collective political leadership.
Finally, I emphasise again that this must be the last year when the people of Northern Ireland tolerate this farcical improvisation of Budgets in this Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better, and, based on the many contributions that I have heard, right across this House, today, I ask Minister Murphy to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, and can he do better, please?

Philip McGuigan: I am conscious of the Budget debate taking place in the most challenging of circumstances. We are in the midst of an unprecedented global health and economic crisis. In the space of the last 12 months, COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on many families and communities as the virus has spread throughout our population. Unfortunately, the human cost has been devastating, with over 2,000 deaths, and my thoughts are obviously with the families of those who have lost a loved one in the past year.
Necessary action to deal with the pandemic has also meant hardship, worry and difficulties for some businesses and employees. In the midst of a global pandemic, this was never going to be a straightforward year for the North's finances. Despite the high level of support provided by the Executive, there is no doubt that the pandemic has left our economy in a difficult situation.
I am conscious that today's debate is primarily on the Budget and spending in this current financial year, though it makes provision for the initial months of the 2022 financial year. Due to COVID, there are very good reasons for the number and value of in-year reallocations that have taken place this year. Given the late announcements from the British Treasury, there are many reasons why, at this late stage, considerable amounts of money are left by the Executive to spend. In the past few months, I have noted that the Finance Minister has repeatedly called on his Executive colleagues to come forward with bids to ensure that that money is spent prior to the end of March.
No doubt, I, like others, will be regularly contacted in this difficult year by concerned businesses and members of the public who are struggling as a result of the pandemic. Some of those have not even received any support from the various schemes. So, it is vital that all is done to ensure that the money is allocated in the short time ahead and in a way that helps those who need it most. The Minister for the Economy is key in that responsibility.
As Deputy Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I support the comments made earlier in the debate by the Chair of the Committee and want to add a few points. As a member of that Committee, I find it impossible to talk about finances or the Budget without referring to the impact of Brexit.
Brexit, as pushed by the right wing of the Tory party and supported by the DUP, presents a potential threat to agriculture and rural development here in the North. In the sector, the negative implications of Brexit will have the greatest impact on our rural and peripheral communities. As we have left the EU, there is no long-term certainty about the future of the single farm payment, which, if discontinued post-2022, will plunge nearly 25,000 farm families into poverty.
The British Government have dragged the North out of the EU against the wishes of the 56% of the population of the North who voted against it. In that context, the protocol has been an important mitigation that reduces some of the negative impacts of Brexit. The AERA Committee received evidence from departmental officials on the significant threat that Brexit represents to public services. The budget allocation for what was CAP pillars 1 and 2 is £315·6 million. There is a shortfall of £14·4 million, which we would have received had we remained in the EU. The North of Ireland will lose out on £34 million of funding over the next three years because the Tory Government have netted it off our budget.
The British Government are penalising the North for using flexibility under previous rules. That is made worse by the loss of the EU fund for disease eradication, which contributes to the cost of our TB programme. While the AERA Committee has been advised that reduction in funding will not impact on the current rural development programme, it will impact on any future agriculture policy framework for the North.
The South will receive approximately €10·73 billion in European Union funding under the common agricultural policy over the next seven years. The North is now obviously out of that policy, while our neighbours in the South remain in it. That will leave an uneven playing field on the island and could pose a threat to our Northern farmers' ability to compete.
The DUP supported the end of the EU CAP funding, and we are now left with only a Tory manifesto commitment that direct payments will continue until the end of this British Parliament. However, as the Government have repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, that may provide further instability for farmers and rural businesses, who do not know what the situation will be beyond 2022.
We currently have the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRIPSI) programme. That is hugely important for rural communities, and, while it is welcome that the budget of £1·8 million has been confirmed, it needs to be baselined into the future.
Rural policy in the North has largely been shaped and influenced by the EU since the 1970s. EU structural funds are worth £100 million per year. I note that the Finance Minister stated in the past that the British Government have made no commitments to replace those vital structural funds.
I will move on from Brexit to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also been particularly challenging to our agriculture industry. The £25 million support scheme for farmers facing financial difficulties, including £7 million for beef farmers, is welcome but does not go far enough to address the challenges faced by the sector. I represent a rural constituency, and I think that it is important that we continue to mainstream rural and equality needs by maximising them and making them fully understood in all Departments and all government decisions.
A vital part of the AERA Committee's work obviously encompasses our environment. As Sinn Féin's environment and climate spokesperson, I put on record again that we cannot let the tragedy of COVID distract us from preventing the current and future climate-based tragedies that will occur if we do not act. While addressing coronavirus and providing relief to affected businesses and workers must be our most immediate concern, the post-crisis recovery programmes present an opportunity to align public policies more closely with climate objectives and to limit the risk of locking in carbon-intensive infrastructure. Recovery packages can be designed to orientate investment towards sectors and technologies that can accelerate the transition to low- or no-carbon alternatives, improving resilience to future shocks from climate change and creating new industries and jobs here in the North in the process.
One of the many things that COVID-19 has shown us is the direct effect that we can have on our planet's ecosystem. As lockdowns took place across the world, we saw dramatic improvements in air and water quality and biodiversity, with the pandemic even leading to a major decrease in noise pollution. While we are all eager to return to normal once the pandemic ends, it must be a new normal. We cannot revert to the practices of the past.
I will quote from representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) when they gave evidence to the Finance Committee on the draft Budget for the incoming year. They said:
"You have been discussing the impact of the pandemic on budgetary matters. The impact of the pandemic has been incredible; it has been very significant. Having said that, it has also demonstrated and given us a glimpse of what is possible. For example, we were told that you cannot move tens of thousands of workers from the workplace to home overnight. You can."
The ICTU representatives outlined a valid and vital point.
A green economy is affordable, and we cannot afford not to do it. Although getting the economy back up and running will inevitably mean an initial decline in the environmental improvements that we have seen over the past year, we must not let them roll back too far or for too long. Enhancing environmental health through better air quality, water quality, sanitation and waste management, along with efforts to safeguard biodiversity, will reduce the vulnerability of communities to infections and pandemics.
In addition to the challenges of Brexit and the pandemic, Tory austerity has meant that the block grant has not kept pace with demand, so our capacity to deliver public services has been undermined, and the Minister of Finance's ability to provide a Budget that delivers improved public services to our people has been limited. I noted Robin Newton's comment about Sinn Féin labouring that point. While others may not use the phrase "Tory austerity", it was clear from listening to the chief executives of the health trusts yesterday that they are concerned that budget impacts could cause damage to the health service. I also noted comments that were made during evidence to the Finance Committee from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, as I mentioned, and Ulster University's economic policy unit, which talked of the uncertainty of the standstill Budget for this year and next year, and the impact that that will have on our public services. Sinn Féin believes that we need the full transfer of economic and fiscal powers to the North. We want greater emphasis on all-Ireland integration and cooperation in the delivery of public services. Regardless of whether it is this year's Budget or next year's Budget, or any Budget in the future, one thing is clear: relying on a British Government, especially a right-wing Tory Government, will never be good for citizens on this island.

Christopher Stalford: I call Mr Pat Catney.

Pat Catney: My legs are sleeping. Sorry about that, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.
I understand the Department of Finance's difficulties in bringing forward the Budget; I understand that the Treasury did not confirm the funding envelope until the end of November; and I understand the Minister's difficulties in bringing a draft Budget to the Executive. However, here we are once again, debating a piecemeal Budget that does not address the need for longer-term strategic thinking on the fiscal position of Northern Ireland. That approach does not allow for a full conversation about the issues that departmental budgets face. This year, the financial outlook for Departments will remain largely unchanged from last year, but, beyond that, we have a lack of information on what that means for departmental spending. More detail must be provided as soon as possible so that we know what existing spending may continue, what new projects may arise and what funding might stop altogether.
If we look at the Department of Health and the Department of Education, we see that those two Departments cannot withstand another year of standstill Budget. Health's spending is predicted to grow by 6·5% every year. In 2015, we talked about Health's spending growing by 5%, so the situation is getting worse rather than better. Without much-needed reform, our ability to fund an effective health service will cease to exist.
We all know of the pressures that have been faced by our education system over the past number of years. The pandemic cannot have made anything better. If support is not provided to our young people and their return to school as quickly and effectively as possible, the events of this year could end up having a long-term effect.
When the Executive returned last year, they knew that they had to come up with an ambitious plan to get buy-in from the public after three years of disastrous inaction. A year later, Members rightly ask questions about the UK Government's funding commitments in respect of New Decade, New Approach. We need more discussion about and more clarity on progress on the key NDNA commitments. However, without the proper prioritisation of conversations, the 'New Decade, New Approach' document could end up being another fig leaf agreement that sits on the shelf alongside the likes of the Fresh Start Agreement and the Stormont House Agreement, with no plan to tackle health waiting lists. How will the Executive develop a regionally balanced economy with the proposed fiscal council? It is great having ambitious plans, but, if you never implement them, what benefit is there?
Going forward, we must get serious about public service reform. Budgets will always be tight, and circumstances will always come up that we think take precedence over this important piece of work. However, the pandemic has drastically changed the landscape. Approaches that we took in the past may no longer be effective, and new opportunities should be grasped to better serve the public. Although work is ongoing on the development of the economic strategy, there must be adequate budgetary provision for the priorities highlighted by such a strategy. Our economic recovery from the pandemic could be maximised if we considered the benefits of our position, due to the Northern Ireland protocol, as an access point to the EU and UK markets, particularly in the areas of agri-food, life sciences and the low-carbon economy.
The need for strategic thinking is apparent across all Departments. Work on investment and anti-poverty strategies is ongoing, but we have other long-term challenges. We have challenges in health and social care and because of climate change. We need to develop in our young people the skills that make them fit for purpose for future employment opportunities. Without adequate funding for schools and training, we will condemn yet another group of young people to low-skilled jobs and lose others to the brain drain. Strategic thinking needs to be long term, and it is incredibly difficult for Departments to plan strategically and improve on what they deliver when faced with a single-year budget. Single-year budgets also encourage the continuation of existing allocations, rather than facilitating a more fundamental review.
What should effective funding look like? Multi-year Budgets are central to enabling long-term planning and to facilitating value for money, capital programmes and sufficient public-service reform. In my area, with sufficient long-term thinking, funding for the expansion of greenways and the Lagan canal would completely transform our use of active travel and how we work and live. Behavioural change caused by the pandemic will create the need to transform our commercial centres. Regional towns will become hubs of our economic activity. This can be facilitated only with sufficient investment in infrastructure and, as I hear everybody saying, especially about rural areas, in broadband.
We need to provide allocations to tackle the growing housing crisis. We must look at where we live and at how to bring more people into town centres. That can create micro-economies and low-carbon hubs, with everything located within walking distance of our homes. Further strategic infrastructure projects like the M1/A1 bypass are needed to promote a post-Brexit all-island economy, while work on the recently approved Knockmore rail halt just outside the centre of Lisburn unlocks access to public transport for all those using or going through Lisburn.
Of course, the areas where completely new economic hubs can be created are limited. For me, though, I can just about stretch myself to think of one key area that is yet to be developed, one key area that has the potential to enhance the economy at a sufficient level regionally and one key area that, due to infighting and indecision, has been a black hole for lack of funding and missed opportunities. I refer, of course, to Maze/Long Kesh.
I noted with interest yesterday that £1·3 million had been allocated in the spring Supplementary Estimates to Maze/Long Kesh. Maybe this is the year when we will come together to unlock the potential of the land there. Maybe this is the year when sensible heads will prevail, and just maybe I will not have to raise Maze/Long Kesh year in, year out in Budget debates. I live in hope.

Clare Bailey: I welcome the opportunity to speak today on another Budget and another accelerated passage. I will do my bit to save Mr Catney from breaking his Lent alcohol fast. I do not wish to repeat much of what has been raised by Members during the debate today, but I have to admit that, at this stage, I am really glad that I do not share your commitment, Mr Catney.
We have heard Committee responses to the Budget from the Committee Chairs today. We have heard that we are still in extraordinary times dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis that it has brought with it. We also know that women and children are impacted more severely during crises. That is, of course, on top of the austerity agenda of recent years. We have heard about the identified strategies yet to be implemented by the Executive: the gender equality strategy, the race equality strategy and the disability and poverty strategies. They are all still unmet. Those who can least afford it are suffering, and that is to our shame. We have all been lobbied by sectors that have set out some clear plans for how we move forward to a fairer and more just society. The feminist recovery plan, which was mentioned by Mr Nesbitt, is one example. I recommend to anyone who has yet to read it that they should take the time to do so.
We can no longer continue to distract ourselves from the fact that we urgently need to protect those most at risk in Northern Ireland. We need to urgently rethink our economic and fiscal priorities. Previous years' spending shows that public spending per head in Northern Ireland is the highest in the UK. We have the highest spend of any region on public order and safety; economic affairs in enterprise and economic development; economic affairs in employment policies; agriculture; fisheries; forestry; health; recreation; culture and religion; and social protection. We spend more than the UK average per head in each of those categories but not on economic affairs in science and technology, transport or environmental protection. On environmental protection, we have the lowest spend of all four UK regions.
The New Decade, New Approach agreement promised us much, but, perhaps most relevant to this Bill, it promised us an independent fiscal council. The agreement states:
"An independent Fiscal Council will be established in Northern Ireland by July 2020. As per the Fresh Start Agreement, the membership and terms of reference of this Council will be agreed with the UK Government. It would:

? prepare an annual assessment of the Executive's revenue streams and spending proposals and how these allow the Executive to balance their budget; and

? prepare a further annual report on the sustainability of the Executive's public finances, including the implications of spending policy and the effectiveness of long-term efficiency measures".
We all know that the deadline of July 2020 has long gone. Almost one year on, I am not aware of anything solid being done to establish an independent fiscal council. I would be greatly encouraged if the Minister could give an update to the House today on that issue and maybe include a new deadline for an intended establishment date: July 2021, perhaps. We need a reply that goes further in commitment than the response that the Minister gave to a question for written answer a few weeks ago:
"While this work had not progressed as intended earlier this year as the Department focussed on the COVID-19 response, I hope substantial progress can be made on this in the New Year."
Minister, it is nearly Easter. Why have an independent financial institution (IFI)? The OECD argues that IFIs:
"can help to address biases towards spending and deficits ... foster greater transparency and accountability and enrich the public debate."
What is not to welcome about that? I am curious to know why this five-party power-sharing Executive seem reluctant to have such a body established.
It has been mentioned, of course, that we urgently need a green recovery. In response to questions from Rachel Woods MLA during last year's COVID budget debate on funding a green recovery, the Minister said:
"The process that we are dealing with is COVID allocations: money that we received from Treasury this year that was not in the plans last February/March when we were setting the Budget or even when we were discussing the idea of a revamped Programme for Government. This money has come to us and has to be allocated within this year. So, we are not talking about long-term plans being attached to this; we are talking about economic recovery in the here and now, meeting the challenges of the pandemic and trying to assist businesses to get through this crisis. That does not set aside the fact that the Executive will set a Budget coming into the autumn. We will consult on that and agree it in early spring. I hope that it will be a multi-annual Budget, if we can get clarity from Treasury. That Budget, and the Programme for Government that accompanies it, will be where the discussion on long-term, green recovery planning should be had." — [Official Report (Hansard), 28 September 2020, p19-20].
Following on from that, in a written response to the RSPB's written request to the Minister to establish a green recovery fund just last week, the budget director in the Department said that Ministers should reprioritise their departmental budgets to fund green initiatives. That suggests to me that the Minister and his officials really have no regard to their role in a green recovery. Now is the time for a green COVID recovery strategy. Now is the time to deliver that and to put the mechanisms in place. If we could not discuss it when dealing with the money for COVID allocations and it is not included in this Budget, when are we supposed to get it?
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The Green Party has said before — I want to repeat it today — that we must have a sustainable, fair and just recovery to get out of this. We need a plan that we can fund, especially as we face economic recession. It must not be like the one that the Governments implemented after our last social and economic disruption through the economic crash in 2008, when we bailed out the banks; rather, we must look to provide stimulus through components of the green new deal and to bail out our people. There will not be quick fixes. We need long-term plans that do not penalise people by entering into austerity policies on the long road that we have ahead.
I reiterate that our Green colleagues in the European Parliament have already articulated that:
"Our re-emergence from the COVID-19 crisis will be difficult. We will grieve. For some, the pain will be acute. Many will be under severe financial pressure. In many ways the current crisis has left us feeling helpless and with little control. We do still have options though. Instead of refurbishing a system that has shown its inherent weakness, we need to revitalise the economy through legally binding targets and targeted investments. We need a just transition and a green new deal."
As we in the Green Party have stated many times in the Chamber, a green recovery presents us with a short- and long-term vision of sustainable jobs for life with simultaneous improvements socially, environmentally and economically. It is not about getting us back to business as usual, to a world where many struggle to get by, a world endangered by escalating pollution and waste. It is a vision that aims to reduce waste, to cut bills for participating households, to sustain employment through recession and to modernise our housing stock. I remind Members that the Executive parties committed and agreed to this back in 2011. Last year, in response to Rachel Woods MLA's call for a green and just recovery, Minister Murphy said:
"I fully agree with her when she talks about a sustainable, fair and just recovery — that is exactly what I would like to see. I recognise that I am part of a five-party Executive and that those agreements have to be won around the Executive table, but I assure her that that will be my endeavour over the time ahead." — [Official Report (Hansard), 26 May 2020, p85, col 2].
The Green Party in Northern Ireland fully accepts that there will always be a finite budget, but doing the same thing with it over and over again will never bring a different outcome.
We can, however, do things differently if there is the will to do so.
The very way in which we carry out economic appraisals needs to be improved if we are to justify the very necessary cost of investing in our environment, social infrastructure and a green new deal. We need to think about how we appraise future investments. Benefits far into the future cannot continue to be seen as having a lesser value. There are issues around economically valuing non-economic goods such as nature, biodiversity and human health, and that can always be done better to make the argument for investing in our future. We must also consider non-economic costs and what will happen without a green new deal. The impacts of not having one would be catastrophic, and we know that. There are aspects of the green new deal that, because of the inherently new challenges posed by climate change and the need for imaginative solutions, will not be captured by the green book model. We need to include those benefits in our economic appraisals and better capture their value.
Let us end the narrative from some that there is no magic money tree. Indeed, for much reform, a magic money tree may not even be needed. I have already mentioned the areas in which Northern Ireland's spend per head is higher or lower than that in other regions, but we can no longer financially afford to uphold our fractured, segregated and divided society. If we work to end that, finance can be redirected to a better and more sustainable outcome.
For example, in education, we know that there are close to 50,000 empty desks across the school estate and that upwards of £95 million a year is wasted on the duplication of services. An estimation given by the Integrated Education Fund (IEF) is that as much as £1 billion-plus has been spent over the past decade alone on bringing our young people into contact with each other in various cross-community initiatives to correct the negative consequences and prejudice resulting from their initial segregation. Add to that the cost of school transport, which is approximately £81 million a year, with children being bussed past their nearest school to attend a school with a different management type. That demonstrates the staggering economic costs of a segregated system.
Although in Northern Ireland the health spend is equal to that in other regions, there is very little accountability and transparency to the spending. The Green Party therefore calls for reform of and reporting on our health services. It supports the full implementation of Bengoa and the 'Delivering Together' and 'Power to People' healthcare transformation reports and the delivery of more care in the community. It is really serious when we hear a GP say to the media, "It feels as though the whole service is crumbling around us. It does not feel safe". That is really serious, but that wrong can be put right if there is the political will and the bravery to implement what is needed, and if what needs to be done is done.
We know that the Infrastructure Minister has identified that there is insufficient network capacity for waste water treatment works in all of Northern Ireland's local authority areas, except for Warrenpoint — I do not know why, but Warrenpoint is the exception — yet we keep building private development projects. Our spend on transport is the lowest. Our public transport service is not fit for purpose. When it is cheaper for an average family to own a private vehicle than it is to travel on public services, we are in a no-win scenario. Only 3 kilometres of a promised 27-kilometre Belfast cycle network, for example, was delivered. Annual funding to maintain roads is £50 million less than what is needed each year. Required maintenance of £1·2 billion is required just to keep the network safe. There is also the lack of a road maintenance strategy, yet the Executive response is to build more roads. Costs for the A5, for example, will exceed the outline business case costs by 38%, and delivery will be 10 years later than expected.
The sand beds of Lough Neagh are being dredged to provide concrete that is needed for development projects, and the Minister tells us that there are no detrimental environmental impacts.
The Mobuoy dump on the banks of the River Faughan is described as a "super dump". We are all aware of it; it is one of the biggest illegal dumps in western Europe. It is estimated that it will cost £50 million to engage contractors to clean up the dump site. However, there is no sign of that happening either, and communities are still forced to live with it. Despite the NDNA commitments, there has been no progress on an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) for Northern Ireland to prevent and deal with environmental crime, such as operating an illegal dump.
The lack of a clean air strategy means that, due to particulate matter poisons, there are an estimated 500-plus premature deaths in Northern Ireland. In the period 2017-2025, the total cost to the HSC from air pollution in Northern Ireland is likely to be between £55 million and £190 million. The sector that will bear the brunt of that cost will be secondary caregivers, which is historically known to be a low-wage and female-dominated workforce. However, the cost in all other sectors combined is likely to exceed that spend and is more likely to be between £182 million and £635 million. When all diseases are included, air pollution alone is expected to cause 84,000 new cases of disease in Northern Ireland between 2017 and 2035. That will result in the shift of an economic burden of inaction from DAERA to create and uphold an air pollution strategy on to the cost to the health service and human lives.
In last year's Budget, £2·2 million was allocated to deliver new climate change legislation, as well as a scoping study for an independent environmental protection agency. Yet here we are, one year on, and climate change legislation from the Department has not materialised, and the creation of an independent EPA seems to have fallen off the radar. There are so many examples from each Department where joined-up, future-proofed thinking, if applied, could prove to be economically beneficial and create healthier and happier communities and people. That can be applied to housing; welfare; advice and support services; legacy; dealing with our past; and victims and survivors, including victims of institutional abuse. Many of those issues have already been raised today. The list is extensive, and many examples have been outlined by Members today.
One thing above all highlights the failure of delivery of this budgetary system: before COVID, one in four children in Northern Ireland was living in poverty. One quarter of our children were living in poverty. How can that be in a region with, supposedly, the sixth highest GDP in the world? Is it because the macroeconomic indicators do not paint the whole picture? If so, let us paint a new picture. If we moved to joined-up working and ended departmental and ministerial silo working, we could move to a focused, shared and joined-up system of delivery from this five-party Executive. We could make our Budget work better for people, we could achieve quick results, and we could build a more resilient and sustainable economy. We could actually build back better rather than just talk about it.
There has been a lack of time to respond to the draft Budget or conduct equality and human rights screenings. There is still no Programme for Government. The draft PFG that was established through NDNA included commitments on:
"Tackling disadvantage and ?driving economic growth? on the basis of objective need ... underpinned by key supporting strategies".
Progress has been made through expert-led advisory groups and co-design working groups to develop a gender equality strategy, a disability strategy, an LGBTQI+ strategy and an anti-poverty strategy. However, without the specific adoption of those crucial social inclusion strategies in the PFG, the work of the expert-led community groups and the development of those strategies are at a real risk of being blocked by individual Ministers.
There has been no apparent progress on the implementation of the racial equality strategy or even the creation of a childcare strategy. We have even failed to get COVID mitigation payments to businesses that were instructed to close their doors and suffered devastating economic impacts. We failed to get payments to people that would allow them to stay home and isolate, so it should be no great surprise that this Budget is much like every other Budget in style and substance.
New thinking will take brave leadership. Whether that leadership comes from civil servants or Ministers may be a moot point, but, preferably, that, too, could be joined up and come from both levels, for it is urgently needed. We are in multiple crises with the pandemic, and its economic consequences and the climate and biodiversity emergencies, which most here are only beginning to engage with as concepts, yet we are nowhere close to planning a strategy to deal with them.
Whilst delivering this Budget is the responsibility of the Finance Minister, do we really need reminding that it comes from a five-party power-sharing Executive? Much of the discourse today has, again, been pretending that the Executive parties are in opposition to each other, but you are not. You share power, therefore you share responsibility, and this Budget lies at the feet of the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the UUP and Alliance. As your parties' Ministers oversee the spending year ahead, I challenge each of you to step up, be brave and begin the radical change needed towards fiscal sustainability and a green recovery built around a just transition so that we can build back better. This Budget has none of that in it, in spite of the talk around all those concepts. Words, it seems, are cheap.
The Green Party knows how far-reaching and front-loaded the change has to be, and we will stand in support of any Minister brave enough to acknowledge that and move towards it. Time is running out. We are living through the beginning of a drastic change. The only question remaining is do we survive or thrive? There is no thriving in this Budget, and it is debatable whether we can survive without the urgent change that we need. This Budget really falls so far short on both measures.

Alex Maskey: Can we, please, bring Mark Durkan into the Spotlight?

Mark Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. You caught me a bit by surprise, there. I thought that I had a wee while yet, and I was just tucking into my dinner.
As my colleague, Matthew O'Toole, has outlined, the entire approach to this Budget has been chaotic, with little evidence of strategy, long-term or otherwise. We are all well aware of the UK Treasury's cynicism and its failures, yet the Treasury's approach is no surprise. What is needed is agile and creative thinking by the Finance Minister, and other Ministers, pre-empting it and advocating for the funding and flexibility needed to fulfil the promises that have been made to people here in the North time and again.
It is not good enough to lay all the blame at the door of the UK Government or at the door of the pandemic. The money that we do have has not been properly allocated or spent, and that is down to a lack of planning and a poor grip on policy design. With a bit more imagination, the Finance and Communities Ministers would, for example, be exploring different funding models to ensure that more social housing was built, rather than considering selling off the Housing Executive, or taking up the SDLP's call for a mortgage support scheme to prevent homelessness and further housing stress as the full economic extent of the pandemic takes effect.
The Finance Minister makes his own job a bit more difficult when he ends up handing back tens of millions of pounds of unspent funds to the Treasury with one hand and, with the other hand, asking for more funding. Unfortunately, that is an example that is followed by colleagues in other Departments. It still stuns me that the Communities Minister returned £2 million that was earmarked for the COVID discretionary support scheme. What a slap in the face for families across the North who are stretched to their limits and who are trying to do the right thing and follow public health advice. If they come under the prohibitively low income threshold, they are very unlikely to be part of the 2% of claimants to get £500 or more. The average payment is £147, and two Communities Ministers have insisted that that is a more generous scheme than the £500 self-isolation support that is available in other regions.
Today, we discussed the road map out of lockdown. No one should be in any doubt that the requirement for self-isolation will continue, as will the hardship that the pandemic has caused. It is imperative that people are not forced to choose between feeding their families and following public health advice by self-isolating. That is just a microcosm of the bewildering approach to expenditure that marks our entire budgetary process, which leaves people here short-changed.
The same myopia is evident in the draft Budget for the coming financial year, but I will limit my remarks to some of its most glaring contents or omissions. Claims for universal credit here are up by 126%, and the Department for Communities estimated that over 1,400 new staff would be needed to deal with that hugely increased workload. Unfortunately, the Communities Minister made a bid for only 900 new staff, but even that has been rejected as per the draft Budget. I raised that with the Finance Minister last week. The consequence of that, though, is that the already intolerable and, some might say, inhumane five-week wait will be dragged out even further for some applicants, some of whom may have been the very people who could benefit from one of those jobs. That is not to mention the stress on existing staff on the front line, who have been fantastic throughout the crisis.
On top of that, in the draft Budget, there is a proposed £1·5 million cut to the independent advice sector. That is a minuscule saving in the overall Budget, but its impact will be enormous, not least, again, for those tens of thousands of people who are trying to navigate the social security system for the first time. I have serious concerns about the debt that people are being driven into. It is a charter for loan sharks. When those people go out and do their utmost to get a job, they will find, as the Communities Committee was told by departmental officials that this region:
"will be the only region on these islands that will not be adequately resourced to support people who face unemployment in the ... biggest economic crisis faced in our lifetime".
That is pretty stark, and that was from the officials. However, that is because the Job Start scheme for young people, or false start, as I have taken to calling it, the work experience programme and the upfront childcare costs for parents who are returning to work have all been denied funding. Those labour market interventions are critical. This will cost us much more in the long term, and I do not just mean economically.
As a post-conflict society, we already have our complex and intergenerational mental health issues, but those have been compounded massively by the pandemic, particularly for our children and young people and for those who have lost their jobs and businesses and are under massive pressure. Yet, the full scale of the crisis does not seem to have been grasped. We can all express our support for positive mental health, but what people really need are the services to manage it and to prevent problems with it in the first place. When assessing bids or looking at how we are going to use COVID funding for next year, mental health must be top of the list.
I am conscious of time, Mr Speaker, so I will highlight briefly the potential of city deals and the subregional stadia strategy, particularly for my home city of Derry and my constituency of Foyle. City deals have the potential to generate economic returns far beyond the original investments and rebalance regional disparities in the North. As Mr Newton mentioned, consultation on the subregional stadia programme ended in 2016, and, as I have said previously, it has taken on an almost mythical status for many clubs and communities. As I have said, there must be a fair geographical spread.
My colleague Sinead McLaughlin has once more made the case for the expansion of Magee. It not just Derry that needs it but Northern Ireland. She referred to how, 100 years ago, we led the way in exports. Sadly, we still do, but what we export now is our most valuable commodity: our young people. So many of them do not return to these shores after they have gone elsewhere to study.
I am sure that the House will be thrilled to hear that we, as Foyle representatives, will not just shut up now that we finally have our city deal signed off. It is a great start, but that is all that it is. Even in the Department for Communities' draft budget, £8 million of capital is earmarked for Belfast's city deal but only £500,000 for Derry.
Failure to think creatively and strategically and lackadaisical implementation are a toxic mix for public finances. Budgets are the bedrock of government strategy and have the power to change lives here for the better. We need a dynamic and coherent strategy that invests in the economy and in people and recognises the new challenges of a post-Brexit and, hopefully soon, post-pandemic world.

Jim Allister: Having listened ad nauseam to complaints about standstill Budgets, I thought that it might be a useful and informative exercise to compare the figures in the Budget that we are debating tonight with the figures in the parallel Budget from this time last year. When you do that, it is, indeed, rather informative.
Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the sum of money that is to issue out of the Consolidated Fund this year. The sum is set out as £22,220,000,000. When you go to last year's Budget, you discover that the figure was £17,500,000,000. In the short space of one year, we have seen a significant increase in the Consolidated Fund drawdown from £17·5 billion to £22·25 billion — almost £5 billion. Of course, a substantial portion of that will be the £3·3 billion of extra COVID money that we got, not all of which we could spend, which indicates the extent of that commitment to Northern Ireland. However, it is increasingly untenable for people to talk about a standstill Budget when this Budget has a rise from the Consolidated Fund of almost £5 billion in just a year.
Go to clause 2, and you will read the figure for the use of resources. This year, it is £25·124 billion. Last year — a mere 12 months ago — it was £21 billion. That is an increase of £4 billion.
Therefore, when we hear the repeated mantra of severe detriment and loss, we need to take heed of what the actual figures tell us.
Earlier in the debate, I heard the Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim lamenting about the situation pertaining to agriculture spend post Brexit. I recall many in the House telling us that, when we lost what they misnamed EU funding — more properly, the British funding directed through the EU — it would be the end of agriculture. Yet, if we compare DAERA's DEL spend in this year's spring Supplementary Estimates with last year's, we discover an increase of £350 million, primarily in food and farming spend. So, far from the doom and gloom that we were almost promised by some, that is the reality.
We go to the Department for Communities. The Minister of Finance does not often talk about the AME spend in Communities. That is the benefit spend, and it is taken as a given, but it is all taxpayers' money. We discover that the AME spend is up by £660 million in one year.
We arrive at a gross resource in capital spend of approximately £30 billion a year: a phenomenal amount, and a reminder of the benefits of being in the United Kingdom. Of course, this year, we had the very telling reminder of the benefit of being under a free National Health Service during the awful COVID proceedings. It is, I think, both sobering and necessary to reflect on the sheer scale of budgetary amounts that the Assembly is blessed to have.
For some, that is just something to ignore, but that is the reality. Approaching £30 billion of spend in Northern Ireland is not to be sniffed at, though some would toss it aside and say, "We need more". Some would even say, even though they know that the sums can never add up, "In fact, we need fiscal powers". They should be careful what they wish for. If you ask for fiscal powers, you might be told to raise the £30 billion that you spend. Where would you find that from a working population of 700,000 or 800,000? You would know all about poverty and high taxation then.
I want to seek absolute clarity from the Minister on two other things. I go back to the issue of the payment scheme for innocent victims of the Troubles. I want the Minister to be clear with the House. Outlining the ambit of the Executive Office, schedule 3 to the Bill says:
"victims and survivors including actions and payments associated with the preparation and implementation of a Victims Payments Scheme for permanent disablement".
Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Executive Office's ambit is sufficient to cover the payment of the disablement pension long promised to victims?
Is that ambit sufficient in that regard when it talks about:
"payments associated with the preparation and implementation",
or is that only for the administration? That is an answer that I would certainly like to hear. Is that an ambit that covers the actual payment of the pension, or does it only cover the administration of the pension? The House is entitled to hear that on the record from the Minister.
Yesterday, I raised the issue of the £1 billion headroom. In his reply, the Minister did not deal with that issue at all, so I will repeat it. Are we actually providing £1 billion of headroom in respect of money that we do not have, on the basis that we give each and every Department an abundance of headroom and they will spend the money somewhere — such money as we have left over from COVID? Is that actually what is happening, and is it good practice and appropriate to build in headroom for money that you do not have? I do not think that it is, but that seems to be what has been going on in this budgetary round.
This is my final point. We are into 2021, and the Budget, in schedules 3 and 4, goes into the expenditure in 2021-22, yet there is not one line — not one ambit — in the Budget that touches upon the centenary of Northern Ireland. This is Northern Ireland's centenary year, yet, within all these ambits, there is not a single one that creates an explicit spending head for the centenary. That is a shame and a disgrace on the part of an Executive who are the Government of Northern Ireland, which celebrates its 100th year. It is a telling commentary that not once is any scope made for celebrating the centenary, be it through community grants to community organisations that might wish to do that or be it through grants to schools or youth organisations that might want to do that. There is not a single ambit, express and explicit, for that purpose. That is a shameful commentary on this Budget, and it needs to be rectified.

Cara Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate in my role as my party's health spokesperson and as a member of the Health Committee. I hope that, next year, we have less of a disjointed process and that, next year, there is increased collaboration and partnership with Departments and their organisations to deliver a Budget that works and delivers for all our people in Northern Ireland. There are a number of points about the Budget, as it relates to health and social care, that I would like touch on.
First, there is the issue of workforce and recruitment challenges because of non-recurrent Budgets. Yesterday, I wrote to the chairs of the health trusts across the North further to their statement and response to the draft Budget consultation. I understand that that joint statement from the chairs was an unprecedented move, which underscores the deficiency of this Budget.
Trust chairs have the responsibility for governance and running the service, and the scale of their concerns about the Budget is deeply worrying.
The Budget settlement, as proposed, does not give trusts the flexibility to recruit staff and to address severe workforce issues. That is simply not sustainable and does not allow for any kind of future planning. There is also the potential that it will lead to millions of pounds being paid to agencies to plug workforce gaps, particularly in professions such as nursing, as we all know.
During the pandemic over the past 12 months, we have seen the pressures that our NHS staff have been under. It has brought home to us all just how overstretched our services are across the Six Counties and how stressed staff have been. Of course, workforce pressures are not new to the NHS, but we would be lying if we said that they have not been exacerbated due to COVID-19 pressures.
There is also safe staffing. I understand that the draft allocation does not provide funding to cover the Executive's commitment to that and that it will have to be covered in monitoring round bids. When it comes to the monitoring rounds, I hope that that will not be an issue and that those bids will be successful. Safe staffing levels should be the minimum standard of patient care that we try to achieve. I welcome the fact that some progress has been made on the development of legislation in that regard and hope that it can be progressed. In an ideal world, we would be looking more at holistic levels of care, but, with the current pressures and restraints, I recognise that, for the most part, that is some way off.
In addition to the restrictions that the settlement imposes on staff recruitment, how can other hugely pressing issues such as waiting lists and transformation ever be addressed within the constraints of in-year, non-recurrent funding? We all know someone, be it a friend, family member or constituent, who is waiting for an operation or a diagnosis. We recognise that the pandemic has forced trusts to prioritise and save lives. That is entirely justified, but, as we move towards easing the restrictions, we must be in a position to deliver care to all those who need it. The Budget does not give trusts the resources or capacity to tackle our waiting lists, which were among some of the worst on these islands before COVID-19. That continues to be deeply concerning. I urge the Finance Minister to look again to see what additional resources can be allocated.
I also want to mention briefly transformation and service redesign. While all Members will share the aim of having world-class health services and centres of excellence across the North, transformation needs to be done in partnership with local communities. I recognise that a number of service reviews are waiting to be commenced. It is crucial that those are not done until there can be proper community consultation.
One area of healthcare that I am sure that all Members will share my concern about is funding for the mental health and well-being of our constituents in Northern Ireland. Since becoming an MLA last May, I have raised that with the Health Minister in the Chamber on a number of occasions. Local organisations are doing fantastic and often unrecognised work on suicide and suicide prevention in our communities, and one that comes to mind is the Community Crisis Intervention Service that is based in the north-west. While, of course, any and all funding is to be welcomed, the constant uncertainty and need to continually fight for funding places huge pressure on stretched services. It also leads to uncertainty for staff employment and for the service users who rely on them. I ask the Executive, again, to recognise how vital the service offered by those organisations is — it is very often life-saving — and to provide them with funding that is longer-term, sustainable and ring-fenced, to allow them to continue that life-saving work. As we heard recently, investment is also badly needed to secure detox services in the north-west.
As we, hopefully, now begin to slowly emerge from the pandemic, we all have a much greater appreciation and understanding of the great and often difficult work that is done by those in our health service and working on the front line. Our health workers deserve a wage that reflects the depths of their devotion. That is a lesson that has been learned and is something positive to take from the awful year that this has been.
There is a real momentum to address the shortcomings and failures that we have seen in the system, and we should open up the discussion about bringing a world-class system of healthcare to Northern Ireland. Our health service is clearly suffering after more than a decade of underinvestment. Last year, we all stood at our doors and clapped for our amazing healthcare workers, just a short six months after nurses had to strike for pay.
We should never let that happen again. I therefore call on the Executive to match their rhetoric on supporting the health service with action and funding. Reform of and investment in our precious health service are direly needed and long overdue, and now is the time to act.

Gerry Carroll: People Before Profit will be opposing the Budget and is deeply concerned by it. We are concerned about how it has spectacularly failed to deliver on key commitments made last year in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and about its inability to achieve the expansion of the services needed in the face of the pandemic and to tackle wealth inequality across our society. For weeks, even in its draft form, the Budget consulted on by the Executive was utterly unacceptable. Potential reductions are proposed to core funding for front-line workers, welfare support, homeless services and mental health provision, while job training for young people has been ripped out. That is no way in which to treat people who have sacrificed and struggled through the challenges of the pandemic. That its proposals, even in draft form, were circulated is an insult to the people on the ground on whom they will have a direct impact. The Executive have sought to present it broadly as a standstill Budget, but, considering the serious increase in need due to the pandemic in the area of health and the economic implications, not to mention rising costs, the draft Budget is, in many areas, one that harks back to politics characterised by neoliberal economics and insufficient public spending. Nowhere does it offer seriously to eradicate poverty or challenge the growing threat of unemployment across society. In that context, we cannot and will not support it.
If anything, the current Executive seem to take a head-in-the-sand approach towards those issues. For example, in preparation for this Budget, much is being made of the high rate of unemployment here, which stands at 26·6%. That is 5·9% higher than the British average. That worrying figure has not simply fallen from the sky, nor can it be attributed solely to the damaging impact of the COVID pandemic. Unemployment has been a long-standing problem across our society because successive Stormont Administrations have presided over years of reductions in public spending, leaving our economy subject to the whims of free-market forces.
Moreover, the parties that currently comprise the Executive spent the past decade lobbying the British Government for powers to cut corporation tax and to reduce taxes on the rich. Our party has always opposed that neoliberal vision and believes that, in this decade, Stormont needs urgently to fight for widespread and progressive taxation on the rich and the wealthy as a way in which to tackle inequality and expand investment towards human need, and to act in the interests of working-class people more generally. The legacy of previous decisions by Stormont Executives is well illustrated by the fact that we are still paying millions of pounds in interest to fund various PFI initiatives that represent a colossal waste of public money. Those were brought about by the parties that were also responsible for the renewable heat incentive and other scandals. When we consider that nefarious record of public spending or the fact that, when the Budget drafts were released, the Executive revealed that they were unable to spend £300 million of COVID support money, it is simply unacceptable for Stormont Ministers to tell us that their hands are tied and that they cannot further fund services any better.
This Budget also clearly repeats the same failures of the past through the Executive's inability to provide the important mechanisms of scrutiny and accountability. Let us be clear about the process here. When this Budget was put out for consultation, the Finance Minister admitted that there was little time to:
"consult with the public and finalise the Budget",
before opening up a short window of consultation. Trade unions, anti-poverty campaigners and welfare advice organisations were alarmed by this Budget, as anyone following the media will have seen. The consultation process ended at the end of last week, yet we have had a situation in which the First and Second Stages of the Budget Bill are being rushed through once again, after Standing Orders were suspended to do so, in order to force through an unpopular Budget. Are we seriously to accept that the Executive even looked at the responses to the Budget consultation in that period? I doubt it. They had, in my view, already agreed to change Standing Orders to push ahead with the Budget proposals in advance of the consultation submissions being looked at.
True to form, the Executive are again rushing through policy with little oversight. That has already alarmed many anti-poverty campaigners.
The updated Budget proposals from last night are presented in a way that spending figures are so general and broad-sweeping that it is next to impossible to detail where exactly money will go, but measuring these documents against the draft proposals is alarming.
In DOH health spending, we see significant reductions in schedule 2 relating to spending ending this month. Over much of the past year, we have seen a decrease of almost £600 million in resources authorised for use and a reduction of £40 million in accruing resources. However, when we look at the Department of Health spending for schedules 3 and 4, which relate to the upcoming period, it gives no real indication of spending detail or breakdown, and we are to assume that it is a flat Budget. That is most alarming, considering that we are still in a pandemic. The Budget fails to provide funding for a range of health issues previously deemed priorities by the Department and the Executive. They include a commitment last year of £75 million to action a transformation of the health service, and that is not included in the Budget. Its absence will likely add significant pressure to our health service.
Despite the crisis facing our care homes, and the repeated commitments from the Minister and the Department to address it, the money set aside to review adult care via 'Power to People' has not been allocated. That signifies no fundamental change in the operating of our care system and represents a continuation of the crisis-driven for-profit system.
Despite our health service and its staff being completely overwhelmed by work this year due to the pandemic, there seems to be absolutely no acknowledgement of the need to bolster staff and those able to work in our health service. The £6·5 million for 900 extra nursing and midwifery students over three years has not been included in the Budget. That means that our health service will continue to be understaffed and under-resourced. As many Members said, the pandemic has presented untold mental health stress and pressure for communities that already suffer disproportionately from depression, suicide and mental health stress.
The £10·6 million for the mental health action plan has not been included in the Budget. That means that the Department is unlikely to be able to deal with the extra mental health stresses and pressures brought on by the pandemic. We need to increase our provision of counselling, including in GP centres and elsewhere. I note that 50% of GP centres in my constituency are unable to provide in-house mental health services. That is a shocking figure. This proposal takes us in the opposite direction and signifies no real commitment to improving mental health services for those who desperately need them. We are disappointed that the money set aside to rebuild cancer, oncology, haematology, and services for palliative and end-of-life care have not been included or detailed in the Budget.
NDNA promised increased provision for those in need of IVF treatment, but the Budget does not account for it. We are concerned about the impact that that could have on couples who have no time to wait whilst trying for a family.
Last year, healthcare workers took industrial action, in part to highlight the lack of safe staffing in our health service. It is of grave concern that the Budget has not allocated the necessary resources to allow for safe staffing in our healthcare settings. That puts further pressure on our healthcare workers, who have given their blood, sweat and tears over the past year, and it potentially places patients in unsafe conditions.
The other alarming area of the Budget proposals is in the Department for Communities. We will never forget that the parties presiding over the Budget are the same ones that disgracefully pushed through Tory welfare reform. We are concerned that the Budget does not meet its section 75 obligations and will have a broadly detrimental impact across society.
We are in the midst of an unprecedented global health pandemic that has thrown people's lives into chaos and put many more people in an increasingly precarious situation. The number of people on universal credit has exploded. The number of people who are unemployed, or who may become unemployed when furlough ends, has increased dramatically. Now is the time to expect the Government to do everything necessary and everything that they are capable of to protect people, especially the most vulnerable. That is not what the Budget proposes to do. In fact, it does the opposite.
The treatment of the welfare advice organisations through this process has been disgraceful.
We all saw the headlines on proposals, but no additional resource funding has been allocated to the Department for the independent advice sector to support welfare change in the draft Budget 2021-22, and that equates, in real terms, to a £1·5 million reduction in funding. Utterly shameful stuff. Proposals to slash funding for advice services, especially at present, are an attack on workers' rights and on those who find themselves in the position of looking for help from the Government.
There have been no significant moves to address the need to increase staff numbers to process and pay the working-age benefits, and there have been question marks over plans to recruit additional staff to process and pay working-age benefits in light of the increased demand for social security, which will bring about more hardship and delay.
The settlement does not seem to provide any COVID-19 allocation to address the need for labour market interventions to support people to return to employment and thereby help with the economic recovery. In the past year, 10,720 redundancies were proposed, with the manufacturing, retail and wholesale sectors hit particularly badly, and unemployment among young people aged between 16 and 24 has been running at 11·7%.
The absence of employment support will compound the problems that have intensified as a result of the pandemic and its economic fallout. A lack of planning on employment programmes for young people, the advisory discretionary fund expansion and payments of upfront childcare costs, which has been referred to, as well as work experience programmes, is another area of deep concern. The failure to protect and help young people represents, in our opinion and that of many others, a gross failure in the Government's duty.
Taken as a whole, the Budget represents a further attack following the decision to inflict Tory welfare reforms on the low-paid and the most vulnerable in our communities. We can and must do better, and the Executive must break from a strategy that fails to put the interests of the vast majority of people first. Everyone in our society deserves dignity, respect and equal treatment, and the Budget, as even some MLAs from Executive parties have admitted, fails to do that. For that reason, I will oppose it.
Our party will continue to be a voice for working people and communities. There are some ideas that should be considered in the Government's strategy but have not been. The vulnerable should be protected by fully funding advice services and replacing failed Tory welfare reforms with a more humane system. A public jobs programme should be created to help deal with the rise in unemployment, the environmental crisis and the housing crisis. There should be increased funding and capacity for the NHS, including a massive recruitment campaign to deal with the ever-mounting waiting lists. There should be an urgent increase in funding for mental health services and a strengthening and extension of COVID support measures to protect workers and the vulnerable in our communities. There should be a significant pay rise across the board for workers and a strengthening of workers' rights, as well better financial support for the low-paid and those in precarious employment who need to self-isolate. There should be a full reimbursement of students and those who have been forced to pay tuition fees, and there should be a new economic strategy to tackle wealth inequality. You may say that that is a wish list, but we have been through a very tough and difficult year, and people demand nothing less.

Claire Sugden: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to today's Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Given the stage of the debate and the time of the evening, I promise you that I will make this brief.
I understand the pressures of the previous year. I understand the pressures of creating a Budget in the final year of a mandate with no discernible Programme for Government other than a political document dubbed 'New Decade, New Approach'. Sadly, it was not a new approach. We still have parties competing with each other in and out of government; we still have Ministers working in their siloed Departments; and we still have one-year Budgets, which provide no opportunities for long-term planning, stability and good governance.
Many Members have spoken today of the necessity of a strategy, and I agree. We must get back to an outcomes-based approach that focuses on public services rather than on public spend. However, alongside any approach, we need leadership, responsibility and courage from those who are delivering. Otherwise, the strategy is just words on paper.
We must also find a better way of responding to unexpected events and circumstances and find a way to address the immediate issues in parallel with solutions to our long-established problems, such as waiting lists, which were as much an issue last year as they are today.
Every year since 2016, there has been a crisis, and, every year, crises are given as a reason not to govern. I accept that we cannot control some of those events, but we can control how we react, and, to an extent, we can control our environment. It is all of our jobs to improve public services for everyone in Northern Ireland, but somehow that stopped. It stopped four years ago and it stopped last March.
Again, I do not underestimate the challenges of the past year. It has been unprecedented, but we need to get a grip on our public services, because undoubtedly while the pandemic has made public services difficult, public services as they are have made the pandemic even more difficult.
I intend to speak at length to only one omission in the Budget, as other Members raised many of my other concerns, and I am grateful to all of them. They raised important concerns about mental health; special educational needs; an economy stimulus regionally and more locally on the high street; rural needs, including improvements of infrastructure; and access to services.
I remain disappointed by and represent the concerns of young people and employers that labour market interventions have not appeared in the Bill. Given that under-25s make up the biggest proportion of those people who have been made unemployed, it is short-sighted at this point to shelve schemes that would help young people into work.
The Job Start scheme, for example, is a variation of Westminster's Kickstart scheme. To be fair, I would understand if a better and more flexible variation were launched in Northern Ireland, but it does not feature in the Bill, which makes no sense. The Job Start scheme is an income-based scheme that is delivered by the Department for Communities, not the Department for the Economy. It ensures income as well as providing people with valuable work experience that will eventually lead them into jobs.
The Minister highlighted the necessity for income support, particularly during the pandemic. Job Start sitting in the Department for Communities is income support with added value, so why is it not in the Budget? Every day that the Northern Ireland Executive do not launch the scheme, another young person will seek opportunities elsewhere. Given that the Kickstart scheme in GB launched several months ago, our young people who want to live and work at home now because of the pandemic will reluctantly move away from Northern Ireland towards other aspirations and jobs.
The Northern Ireland Executive's inaction is actively contributing to our brain drain and to our loss of skills, impacting on our economic investment opportunities and, most concerning, telling our young people that they are not valued. I wrote to the Minister about Job Start, and he responded outlining the challenges of the previous year, the ongoing effect of the pandemic and the impact on the number of individuals requiring support, particularly from the Department for Communities in helping people get back to work to earn an income. I really understand, but Job Start will help people to get back into work in a meaningful way that considers young people's interests, talents and skills and actually keeps them in work. It is investment to save, investment to innovate and investment in our young people.
To labour the point, those young people are already accessing income-related benefits because there are no jobs for them in the midst of a pandemic. Why not provide income-related benefits via a workplace that is willing to give them experience and training and, potentially, a job at the end of the programme? Young people do not want to be at home. They want to work. They want to build a life for themselves, and it really baffles me why our Executive are not helping them to do that at this juncture.
I support the focus on maintaining good health during the pandemic. Good health, however, includes good mental health. At what point do we realise that the reaction to COVID-19 is creating another pandemic, an illness that has long infected Northern Ireland because of trauma suffered? Every year, government inaction creates a new variant, and, sadly, for too many people, including young people, that variant is deadly.
I appreciate that there is a bottom line. I appreciate that Departments need to ease internal pressures in order to ensure day-to-day operations. However, we are in the business of public services serving the people of Northern Ireland. We need to serve them, we need to serve them well and we need to do better.

Patsy McGlone: Tá mé ag dul a bheith measartha achomair, a Cheann Comhairle. I will be relatively brief, Mr Speaker. We have taken quite a considerable time. I appreciate the forbearance of Members.
The SDLP has a number of concerns about the Budget allocation for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, many of which I have raised previously. In particular, we are concerned about the failure of the Budget to address the impact of Brexit on the funding available for agriculture and especially for rural development. It has been known for some time that funding previously available to the Department and through the Department to farmers would be affected by Brexit. Some £15·3 million over the next three years has been lost from the funding to support the bovine TB programme, and it is projected that £34 million has been lost from the previously available funding for rural development over the next three years. That amounts to a shortfall of some £19·5 million for next year alone, all as a consequence and an outworking of Brexit.
That funding has not been replaced in the Budget. Any additional funding that has been secured from the UK Treasury will instead be used against the cost of the sanitary and phytosanitary process, which has not been considered as part of the Budget, as well as wider policy work that includes Brexit, staffing costs and environment programmes. Again, a shortfall is predicted for those areas of some £3·3 million.
We also share the Department's concern about the overall resource shortfall in the Budget of £33·9 million. The implications of the New Decade, New Approach commitment for the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency has not been considered in the Budget either, which presumably means that the commitment will be delayed even further.
As the first post-Brexit Budget, there is little sign of the benefits for the agriculture sector that were promised by some of the hardline Brexit advocates. Their reliance on direct UK Treasury funding to cover the gaps created by that process demonstrates the foolishness of that position. We already knew that relying on the British Government to match EU funding was not really going to work. That direct funding is short; it was always going to be short and will continue to be short of what is required. The gaps will continue to grow in negotiations with the British Government on future agricultural funding. Perhaps the Agriculture Minister's party can finally admit that promises from that source should have been taken with a big pinch of salt.
That said, the Budget presented to the Assembly fails to meet the needs of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and the responsibility for that lies with the Finance Minister and the wider Executive. There is probably no other Department that faces as much change and uncertainty as a consequence of Brexit than DAERA. The Budget does little to alleviate the prospects of the months and years ahead, and provides scant hope for the funding shortages for the Department. It will be for this Assembly and future Assemblies to seek to minimise the impact of those cuts in funding and farming, the environment, support and rural development.
Many of us from rural communities know that development is underpinned by rural development programmes. They initiate and support many of our microbusinesses. Those of us from rural communities understand that those microbusinesses often grow from subsidiaries of a family farming business. Many of the businesses that I know, which are extremely successful in my area, have been grown by people who worked in farming and saw an opportunity, and that broadened out. They now employ many of their neighbours. That rural support and pillar of funding, provided through DAERA, was pivotal in helping many of those smaller businesses to grow and provide employment in their parishes, which was not available previously.
I conclude with just one item for the Minister, which I have already raised today: COVID-19 support for our Lough Neagh fishermen. This issue has been elongated, torn out and dragged out through the Department for a long number of months. There is no justification for it. People were promised that this support would come last summer; they anticipated that it would definitely be there in the autumn; some thought that at least they would be given something for Christmas; but no. It never arrived.
Many of those fishing families are on relatively low incomes, and they need that support. We have been critical of the slowness of other Departments in getting out support, but they do not match this Department, which moves not even at a snail's pace. A snail's pace is fast compared with how it has moved. It is abysmal and awful that people cannot get the money that is due to them and which was promised to them. I have made enquiries about whether the Department of Finance has authorised DAERA to make those payments and sanctioned their being sent out. Will the Minister clarify that that is the case? It would be helpful in pursuing where the delay is. We are duty-bound to deliver to those families and to help to support them through the difficult times that they have been trying to work their way through.
Gabhaim buíochas leat, a Cheann Comhairle as ucht an ama agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an tacaíocht, tá súil agam, don na hiascairí ar Loch nEathach. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your time. I thank the Minister for his support, I hope, for the fishermen on Lough Neagh.

Alex Maskey: Maith thú. Well said.

Conor Murphy: It has been a long day and a long debate, but that is to be expected when there are a lot of issues to be talked about. I am prompted to go back, because, particularly in the latter stages of the debate, a lot of Members talked about what this Budget will do for next year. The Budget for next year has not been debated yet. This is a Vote on Account: it does not constitute the setting of a Budget for the 2021-22 year; it is merely to allow the Departments to continue to operate to provide services in the early months of that year and will depend on the consideration of the Executive's final Budget through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June. Since the Budget Bill is out there, people have, understandably, referred to it. When Members are voting, they need to be certain that we are not voting on next year's Budget. I was surprised by some of the Members who made that fairly basic, common mistake.
The other issue is the common thread that ran through the debate, which was, "We need more money for this" and "We need more money for that", much of which I cannot disagree with. Of the many issues raised, there are very few that I do not agree need more money. I agree that the Executive should spend on all the issues that have arisen from the pandemic. I agree that we should spend to support the vulnerable and our healthcare workers. We should spend on education and invest in skills and training. We should invest in the green new deal. I get all the issues that were raised by those in the Chamber.
Here is the thing: for the entirety of last year, right up to the end of November, the Executive were promised a multi-year Budget. We had a sense of hope that it would be a decent Budget, because the Budget that we got this time last year was an improvement, and, for the first time in many years, every Department had received an uplift. We sincerely hoped that it would mean an improved position that would allow us to plan for the time ahead. However, at short notice, we were told that we would not get that. We got an annual Budget. It was a flat-cash Budget. Jim Allister tried to add some fantastical figures to it. The British Government should have employed him, because he did a better job than they did of trying to spoof what was in the Budget and inflate what had been made available to us. He has outdone them in that regard.
Nonetheless, today, I read a report by the Ulster University economic think tank that accepts that this is a standstill Budget in the cash available. I think that it was Gerry Carroll who made the point that a standstill Budget is, in effect, a cut. That is what we have been given. It came on 25 November, and then there was the obligatory two-week hiatus for the Secretary of State to confirm it before we could even start to consider allocations. That presented the Executive with two options: roll over every Department's spend so that they all had the same spend as last year; or go for a reprioritisation exercise, which, given the timescales involved, was not doable in any significant sense. So, the entire Executive — all five parties — agreed that we would go for a standstill Budget That has presented a huge range of problems for all Departments. The alternative, if Members propose, "We need more money for this" and "We need more money for that" is a reprioritisation exercise.
That would mean that some Departments would get additional money. Generally speaking, that would be Health — a lot of Members have argued for Health spend — and, probably, Education.
When you down the list to Infrastructure, Agriculture, Finance, Communities and Justice, and to all the other issues that Members raised, you get into further cuts, so you have less money to spend on the things that Members were saying were priorities. So there is a responsibility on Members who stand up to lecture me. I have listened to quite a lot of lectures today about what we are doing wrong, what we should be doing right and where we should be spending more money, but nobody in those contributions said where we would get it from. Members argued that more money should be given to Justice for policing, which is a very valid argument, and if we are going to lose policing personnel, that will be a huge difficulty for society. However, nobody said that because we need more police, the money should be taken off Health or the Department of Agriculture or the Department for Communities. In the entire course of about six or seven hours of debate, nobody presented an alternative to what the Executive were faced with.
There were substantial criticisms, and we are Executive Ministers. I am the Minister of Finance, and I am happy to take all the criticisms that come our way. Members talked about a lack of strategy and a disjointed nature, and, of course, there are difficulties and there are things that the Executive should do better, but these are the realities of the finances available to us, and everybody here knows that. When Members make their statements and probably write them up and send them to the local press saying, "Money should be spent on this. I support that and I want to see that invested in", they do not say how it is going to happen. They do not say where it should be taken from. In a finite Budget situation, we have two choices. We either spend what we have and give the Departments what they need, or we decide to reprioritise and take money off Departments to put it towards what Members argue is priority spending.

Clare Bailey: Thank you for giving way. Minister, I made points about where money could be reallocated and saved in order to spend on priority needs. Continuing with the current system of duplication of services and silo working is not effective and is not fiscally responsible, and I was using those examples to try to encourage Executive Ministers to work better together to prioritise and reallocate our money in more effective ways. I think that I was giving those examples. Apologies if it did not come across very well.

Conor Murphy: Of course the Executive should and could work better on everything. I am sure that Committees would all accept that they could and should work better as well, and all of us can always do better. I heard you argue that the education system needs to be changed, but the education system will not be changed in time to improve next year's Budget. It will probably require significant investment, actually, to change the education system. The issue of 50,000 extra desks in schools will not be addressed overnight. Others talked about the cost of division, and those are all admirable long-term objectives, but they are not going to change the budgetary position for 2021-22. That is the point that I am making. I am not denying that Members have suggestions and arguments to make, but they are not going to significantly impact on what we have to spend next year. Next year, what we have to spend is the same as what we had last year. With additional costs and salary costs, we have, in effect, a cut for next year. I am just laying it out as the Finance Minister for people to see it, and if you want to argue that we should be spending money here and we should be spending money there, you are duty-bound to tell us where we should get that money from, and in a fashion that can actually yield something.
I do not want to single it out as a party, but I have to say that there was a strange trend among SDLP Members to say, "Do not be blaming the British Government for this. We are to blame". That is a very strange mindset, because the reality is that we do not decide what our funding envelope is. We do not have any control over that decision. We do not decide the Budget cycle that we have; the British Government decide that. We did not decide the timing of all of that. We were supposed to know this last summer, and the Government decided, for their own interests and their own priorities, to run that right up to nearly Christmas. In those circumstances, I am not sure how we should say, "Don't stand up and blame the Brits". That was the lecture from about six or seven SDLP MLAs over both days. I thought that that was a strange position. It is kind of a warped colonial mindset where we cannot challenge the source of the problems but have to blame ourselves for these ills. The reality is that we do not have control over those factors. If we did have control over them, we might have a different outcome. Actually, the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office suggested that I was not allocating the unspent money because I secretly do not want this state, the North, to work.
I have a higher ambition than the working of this state; I have made no secret of that. I would like to think that he has as well. I thought that that was very strange. There is probably work for a psychiatrist to analyse that type of approach: that we would punish ourselves to prove a point. I assure him that I and my colleagues on the Executive will try to make absolutely the best use of the resources that we have and to get the most resources that we can. That is what we have been doing.
Since I came into this job, I have spent my time fighting battles with Treasury to get flexibility; to get it to honour the NDNA commitments, which were abandoned within 48 hours of being signed up to; to push for confidence-and-supply money that was promised to the party opposite, which we managed to get; and to fight for lost European funding and challenge the decision to hold on to the replacement European funding and use it for the levelling-up agenda in Britain, which will not benefit us at all. I have been fighting those battles every day since I came into office. I found it bizarre that Mr McGrath said, "You might not want to spend this money on people's services because you might want to prove that the North doesn't work". I do not have to do that to prove that the North does not work; it has not worked since its inception. It does not require me to do anything to do that. I have an ambition for a much better outcome for all the people who live on this island.
Several Members made arguments around the victims' payments. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are in an argument over victims' payments. We tried to head that off last September by having a sensible discussion with the Secretary of State. I listened carefully to Mike Nesbitt. I absolutely respect his view, and I do not doubt his sincerity. He had that role. He has listened to many testimonies, and, clearly, he has been impacted by them. I absolutely respect his point in that regard. However, none of the Members who raised that, including Mr Allister, who is now absent, has ever said that we should pay for it or that the British Government should pay for it. They have said, "Somebody should do something about that. Somebody should sort that out. It needs sorted out. Victims are hanging on". I absolutely accept that. We have been trying since last September to sort the issue out. We did not want to be in a situation where victims would have to hold on and wait. We did not create the scheme that is now in front of us with the massive additional costs. We created a scheme — you, a Cheann Comhairle, were part of it, as were, probably, older Members here — when we were in Stormont House, in which we looked at the physical injuries to victims who were from here. We had those discussions; in fact, even with that limited scheme, we had a discussion about who was responsible for paying for it. Quite a lot of that happened under direct rule; it did not happen on the watch of the Executive or even from 1998 onwards. There was a discussion around that.
The British Government took that and added substantially to it. They added people who were psychologically injured, and there is an argument for that. They added service personnel from the British military, who were paid by the British Government to come over here and were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The injuries and psychological trauma that they might have suffered are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. However, the British Government's position is that we, out of the limited resources that we have to pay for all the services that, everybody has identified, are stretched, underfunded and need to be improved — we cannot get out of that vicious circle because we do not have the money to invest our way out and improve services — should pay for all of that. They say that we should pay for those costs, which we did not agree to or sign up to, out of our money that provides for our services.
I do not say that to make the argument that it is services against victims. It is abhorrent to have to make the argument that we have to judge victims' payments against the services that we could provide. Mike Nesbitt talked movingly about victims: we could provide all that money, but, next year, somebody could talk about people who have died on waiting lists or been denied treatment because we did not have the money for those services. We have been desperately trying to have that conversation with the British Government, but all that we have had is bluster and falsehoods from a Secretary of State who, after having accepted at our meeting the Actuary Department's figures for all of that, said the next day, "It's only a few million pounds. They could pay for it out of their underspend". That is not sincerely trying to deal with the victims' payments issue; that is playing politics with it. We have never sought to do that. The Executive are absolutely committed to paying for victims' pensions, but there are people who have played politics with it and added to a scheme that, by their own rules, they are responsible for and yet refuse to engage with us in a serious way to address the issue.
I absolutely accept it when people say, "Get it sorted"; that is what I am trying to do. You need to come off the fence, however, and say, "I believe that the Executive should pay for it out of their resources" or, "I do not believe that the Executive should pay for it". Some people have said that. Some people have argued the Executive's position, which is that we should not pay for it because we cannot pay for it and that, if we had to pay for it, that would be at catastrophic cost to the public services that we are trying desperately to provide.
A range of issues was raised. I do not wish to stay here all night, but I will address some of them. We were taken back to the argument about the percentage of the bids, which Mr Frew introduced yesterday. I made the point to him that I would not measure it against the percentage of the bids but against the percentage of the money that was got. To me, that is more important, because quite a lot of Departments repeated bids continuously throughout the year. He accepted that.
It is interesting that DFI was used as an example. I checked the figures: in total, the Department for Infrastructure got £196·6 million of COVID money over the year. That was 95% of its COVID bids, not including repeat bids. Take repeat bids out of it, and it was 95% of DFI's COVID bids. It is important that people see the full picture. I have no desire to get into the issue that there were no bids in October or January for road maintenance and all of that. If Members wish, however, to create the argument, as Members of the Minister's party have been doing for the past while, certainly in the past two days, that somehow there was a denial of funds, I have to say that a huge tranche of funds went to the Department for Infrastructure. It is up to the Minister to decide how to spend the significant budget that she got last year. When we were asked to prioritise bids that came in, there was £104 million for Translink, because it was a priority for the Department for Infrastructure; £20 million for lost passenger income; £36 million for the Driver and Vehicle Agency; £25 million for the bus and coach industry; and £31·6 million for Northern Ireland Water. Mr Frew raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure investment for Northern Ireland Water, which I accept. We have allocated money for that in the draft Budget. We have also looked to reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing to increase that, because we recognise that the failure over many years to invest in our water and sewerage infrastructure has had a knock-on effect on the ability to develop and invest properly in growth, as well as having created environmental issues.
Chris Lyttle, the Chair of the Education Committee, argued for the need to ensure adequate resourcing of childcare in the Department of Education budget. I know that he is not here, but he may be listening in. The Department of Education received £195 million from Executive funds to address pressures related to COVID-19. That included £26·8 million for payments to families in lieu of free school meals; £18·7 million for holiday hunger payments; £30·6 million to fund holiday hunger payments into the next financial year; £30·5 million for the childcare sector; and £87·4 million for the Education Restart programme. Substantial money has been invested.
Jim Allister raised a range of issues. He is no longer with us, and I am not sure whether he is listening from another place: I shudder to think. When he raised this yesterday, we told him that it was an accounting issue. The functions of a Department are itemised. Victims' funding is itemised for both the Department of Justice and TEO. That does not mean that the funding is there for it, not does it mean that the funding is assigned for it. The issue of funding is obviously still to be worked out. He listed the costs as being way above and beyond even what the Secretary of State tried to tell us was available to us. He has obviously included the COVID money, the NDNA money and a range of other moneys in the Budget this year that were not in there in previous years.
I have dealt with a lot of the issues. To Members who have misplaced their arguments — we will probably have the same debate in June when we come to the actual Budget — I say that what is set out is a draft Budget.
It was based on that collective decision taken by the whole Executive that we did not have the time to reprioritise, so we basically rolled over the money that we got and had a standstill Budget, with nothing extra for any Department. We have got some flexibilities since making that decision. We have looked, where we can, to additional funding, and we have looked to see what the spend is. In doing that, Departments identified £1·7 billion of unmet pressures, and that is a huge, huge challenge.
We are looking at the issues that have been raised, such as safe staffing for health workers; the independent advice sector, which the Communities Minister said that she will be able to cover; the recruitment of benefits staff; and labour market interventions, which Claire Sugden spoke on, as did Gerry Carroll. We will look to address those issues between now and the final Budget stage. I hope to be able to do something on that. We recognise that that there is a huge range of very pressing issues, but it is vital that we to try to assist particularly young people, support those who have become unemployed as a consequence of the pandemic, and make sure that there is support and advice for such people. The safe staffing issue for health workers is also vital. We have, for next year, given a commitment to the Education Minister on teachers' pay and a commitment to the Health Minister on safe staffing.
Last, but by no means least, was the issue of the Lough Neagh fishermen. I am not certain as to why or how that has not been paid, but I will check and come back to you. If it was bid for and has not been paid, that is one thing. However, if it has not been bid for, there is very, very limited time left to put something together for it. My understanding from DAERA is that — we got this response from a number of Departments — it has bid for all that it is going to bid for and is not bidding for any more. That is why we are trying to kick in the contingency plans. I know that it has been a matter of severe concern. Someone else from that corner lambasted me today and said that, if I did not spend all the money, I would go down as a failure. I got that yesterday as well. There was a common thread through the scripts of some SDLP Members; there must be a similar ghostwriter behind them all. I assure them that I intend to spend that, but if the bid is not in at this stage, that is a problem. If it is in and has not been paid, I will happily take it up with the AERA Minister.

John O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Conor Murphy: Yes.

John O'Dowd: On that point, I and others have been lobbying the Agriculture Minister about the eel fisherman. The money is available; it comes from EU maritime funding. The money is there; the scheme is there. It just has not been paid.

Conor Murphy: OK. I accept that point. I am not familiar with it, but I certainly accept it. I am happy to raise it to see what the issue is with payment.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am sure that you and other Members will be glad to know that this is coming to an end. I have tried to respond to as many issues as possible. I have tried to remind Members that we are here to debate the Vote on Account, but I am not surprised that they want to raise the draft Budget, and I do not deny them the opportunity to do so. Undoubtedly, Members will raise that, and I have no doubt that we will come back to debate it all again. When Members address those issues and when they come back to address the final Budget, once we have put out that document, if they have arguments for change, I would appreciate it if they would tell us how we should provide that change. That is a very simple requirement. When you have the same amount of money and something has to change, you have to take money off somebody to give it to somebody else. I would therefore be obliged if Members would follow through on the logic of their arguments and say where that money should come from.

Matthew O'Toole: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to delay him or anyone else, because we, particularly the Minister, have been here a long time. Does he hope to be able to give more of an update on the fiscal council? He talked about multi-year Budgets, and he has just talked about having more structure and Members making positive suggestions. Does he hope that, when the final Budget is brought before the Assembly, we are in a position to talk in detail about those two institutions?

Conor Murphy: Yes. I apologise: he and Clare Bailey raised the issue of the fiscal council. She obviously is not aware, although most people are, that, two weeks ago today, I put a paper on a fiscal council and a fiscal commission to the Executive for approval. I am waiting for that to be dealt with by the Executive. As far as I am concerned, that proposal has been delivered on by my Department, and I want to see it delivered on by the Executive as a whole. Absolutely, both issues feed off each other. People will know the work that has been identified for a fiscal council.
A fiscal commission will look at issues like spending power and what we could do, and I think that its report will be for an incoming Executive. That is because our intention is that it will take most, if not all, of the rest of this year. Therefore, it will be for an incoming Assembly and Executive to debate and discuss what powers they might seek to use. However, we have never had an exercise to look at what powers might be available and what we might hope to do with them. Perhaps, that would take away some of the uncertainty that we live with, in that we do not decide our funding envelope or the timescale for our Budget, and we do not decide when we know about all of that; it all just lands on top of us and we have to plan as best as we can.
As I have said, it is imperative that the legislation that has been debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services and our response to the pandemic can be delivered without delay or interruption. In conclusion, I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2020-21, and into the early months of 2021-22 in the Vote on Account.

Alex Maskey: Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is a Budget Bill, it is established practice that the motion requires cross-community support.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 17/17-22] be agreed.

Alex Maskey: That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Amendments to the Bill may be submitted to the Bill Office up to 9.30 am on Wednesday 3 March.
Adjourned at 8.37 pm.